Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT V. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY et al

ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
3:14-cv-00070 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
San Diego Unified Port District
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Southern District of California
Date Filed: 
Jan 10 2014

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Declaratory Relief/Duty to Defend)
20. The Port hereby incorporates each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 19, inclusive, as set forth fully herein.
21. Despite the Port's requests that ACE defend the Port against the Phelps
Claims pursuant to the Policy, ACE has failed and/or refused to do so. There is tio
reasonable basis for ACE to fail and/or refuse to defend the Port.
22. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the Port and ACE,
concerning their respective rights and obligations under the Policy in that the Port has
requested that ACE defend the Port against the Phelps Claims pursuant to the Policy, but
ACE has unreasonably failed and refused to do so.
23. The Port desires a judicial determination and declaration of the Port's and
ACE's respective rights and duties under the Policy; and specifically, that ACE is obligated
to defend the Port against the Phelps Claims.
24. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the
circumstances in order that the Port may ascertain its rights and duties under the Policy
issued by ACE with regard to its defense obligation. Because of ACE's refusal to defend
the Port against the Phelps Claims, the Port has incurred damages, and faces uncertainty as
to its coverage positions for claims asserted under the Policy.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract/Duty to Defend)
25. The Port hereby incorporates each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 24, inclusive, as set forth fully herein.
26. The Port has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required to
be performed by it in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Policy, except for
those which have been waived, excused, or prevented through ACE's acts.
27. ACE, and DOES 1 through 50 have breached each of the above-referenced
contracts of insurance by unreasonably failing and/or refusing to defend the Port against the
Phelps Claims, as described above.
28. As a direct and proximate result of ACE's, and DOES 1 through 50's actions
alleged herein, the Port has been deprived of its rights to a defense under the Policy and has
been monetarily damaged and incurred foreseeable economic losses in amounts to be
established at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Bad Faith and Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
29. The Port hereby incorporates each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 28, inclusive, as set forth fully herein.
30. Implied in the Policy issued by ACE is a covenant that ACE would act in
good faith and deal fairly with the Port in discharging its contractual responsibilities, that it
would do nothing to interfere with the rights of the Port to receive the benefits that the Port
is entitled to under the Policy, and that it would place the interest of the Port before its own
interests.
31. In breach of these covenants, ACE, and DOES 1 through 50 did the things
and committed the following acts for the purpose of consciously withholding from the Port
the rights and benefits which the Port is entitled to under the Policy:
(A) ACE has failed and/or refused to defend the Port against the Phelps Claims
under the Policy after having been requested to by the Port;
(B) ACE has failed and/or refused to provide a reasonable explanation of the
basis for its failure and/or refusal to defend the Port against the Phelps Claims under the
Policy after having been requested to by the Port;
(C) ACE has placed its own interests ahead of those of the Port; and
(D) ACE has forced the Port to institute litigation to enforce its rights and
benefits under the Policy, and ACE has forced the Port to incur substantial expenses,
including attorneys' fees, in connection therewith.
32. The Port is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that ACE, and DOES
1 through 50 has breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to the Port by other
acts or omissions of which the Port is presently unaware. The Port will seek leave of court
to amend this Complaint at such time as it discovers the other acts or omissions of
defendants constituting such breach.
33. As a proximate result of the aforementioned wrongful conduct of ACE, and
DOES 1 through 50, the Port has suffered actual and consequential damages and out-ofpocket
expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs, and other foreseeable economic losses
all to the Port's damage, in total amount to be shown at proof at time of trial.
34. In committing these acts, ACE, and DOES 1 through 50 acted intentionally,
oppressively, maliciously, and fraudulently, with a conscious disregard of the Port's rights,
with the intention of benefitting themselves financially and with the intention of causing, or
recklessly disregarding the possibility of, damages and foreseeable economic loss to the
Port. ACE, and DOES 1 through 50 intended to and did vex, annoy, injure, and harass the
Port. As a result of such conduct, the Port is entitled to exemplary and punitive damages.
35. The Port is entitled to recover any and all attorneys' fees and costs that it
reasonably incurs in its efforts to obtain policy benefits, that have been wrongfully and in
bad faith withheld by ACE, and DOES 1 through 50.

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.