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

STANDARD PARKING CORPORATION v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

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: 
1:11-cv-05992 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Standard Parking Corporation
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Northern District of Illinois
Date Filed: 
Aug 29 2011

"Count I (Breach of Contract)

22. Standard Parking incorporates paragraphs 1 through 21 as and for paragraph 22 as though fully set forth herein.

23. ACE issued the policy of insurance attached hereto as Exhibit A.

24. Standard Parking complied with all conditions precedent required of it under the Invsco Policy.

25. The Underlying Lawsuit seeks damages that are covered under the Invsco Policy.

26. The Underlying Lawsuit constituted a covered claim pursuant to the terms of the Invsco policy because it involved a claim of physical damage or bodily harm that occurred during the policy period and at an insured location.

27. Standard Parking was an additional insured under the Invsco Policy.

28. ACE breached the contract of insurance by failing to pay for Standard Parking's defense against the Underlying Lawsuit under the Invsco Policy.

29. Standard Parking has suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of ACE's breach of the Invsco Policy, including, but not limited to, incurring the cost of the deductible under the Standard Parking Policy.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Standard Parking Corporation, prays for entry of an order
granting judgment in its favor and against defendant, ACE American Insurance Company, and
awarding it the following relief:

a) Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
b) Prejudgment interest; and,
c) Such other and further relief that the court deems equitable and just.Count II

(Declaratory Judgment)

30. Standard Parking incorporates paragraphs 1 through 29 as and for paragraph 30 as though fully set forth herein.

31. The Underlying Lawsuit alleges damages that are covered under the Invsco Policy.

32. At all relevant times, Standard Parking qualified as an additional insured under the terms of the Invsco Policy.

33. In or about November 2009, ACE's duty to defend Standard Parking against the Underlying Lawsuit pursuant to the terms of the Invsco Policy was triggered.

34. ACE has failed and refused to provide Standard Parking with a defense and has otherwise denied coverage for Standard Parking under the Invsco Policy.

35. It is Standard Parking's position that ACE's failure and refusal to defend and indemnify it against the allegations of the Underlying Lawsuit is, and will continue to be, wrongful.

36. By reason of the foregoing, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties and each of them, which may be determined by a judgment or order of this Court. Pursuant to the terms of section 5/2-701 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS §5/2- 701), this Court has the power to declare and adjudicate the rights and liabilities of the parties hereto under the terms and provisions of the policy of insurance referred to herein and to adjudicate the final rights of all parties and to give such other and further relief as may be necessary to enforce the same.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Standard Parking Corporation prays that the court enter judgment finding and declaring the rights of the parties as follows:
a) Declaring that Standard Parking was an additional insured under the Invsco Policy for purposes of the Underlying Lawsuit;
b) Declaring that the Management Agreement was and is an insured contract under the terms of the Invsco Policy;
c) Declaring that ACE breached its duty to defend Standard Parking against the allegations of the Underlying Lawsuit under the terms of the Invsco Policy;
d) Declaring that ACE has a duty to reimburse Standard Parking for any monies paid or costs incurred in relation to the Underlying Lawsuit, including deductibles, attorney's fees, court costs, and costs of any settlement or verdict against Standard Parking; and
e) Granting such other and further relief as the court deems equitable and just. Count HI

(Bad Faith)

37. Standard Parking incorporates paragraphs 1 through 36 as and for paragraph 37 as though fully set forth herein.
38. Section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/155) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Sec. 155. Attorney fees. (1) In any action by or against a company wherein there is in issue the liability of a company on a policy or policies of insurance or the amount of the loss payable thereunder, or for an unreasonable delay in settling a claim, and it appears to the court that such action or delay is vexatious and unreasonable, the court may allow as part of the taxable costs in the action reasonable attorney fees, other costs, plus an amount not to exceed any one of the following amounts: (a) 60% of the amount which the court or jury finds such party is entitled to recover against the company, exclusive of all costs;
(b) $ 60,000; and
(c) the excess of the amount which the court or jury finds such party is entitled to recover, exclusive of costs, over the amount, if any, which the company offered to pay in settlement of the claim prior to the action.

39. The damages sought in the Underlying Lawsuit fall squarely within the coverage provided by the Invsco Policy.

40. Upon information and belief, ACE has accepted coverage under the Invsco Policy for other defendants named in the Underlying Lawsuit.

41. Upon information and belief, ACE is paying pursuant to the terms of the Invsco Policy the defense costs incurred by other defendants named in the Underlying Lawsuit.

42. ACE's position that claims against other defendants named in the Underlying Lawsuit are covered under the Invsco Policy but that the claims asserted against Standard Parking in the Underlying Lawsuit are not covered is unreasonable and vexatious.

43. ACE's position that Standard Parking did not qualify as an additional insured under the Invsco Policy is unreasonable and vexatious.

44. ACE's position that no coverage is available to Standard Parking for the claims asserted in the Underlying Lawsuit because the owner of the parking facility purchased a commercial general liability policy that covered the claims rather than a policy of insurance bearing a different title is unreasonable and vexatious.

45. ACE's position that coverage is not available to Standard Parking for the Underlying Lawsuit even though the Management Agreement qualifies as an insured contract under the terms of the Invsco Policy is unreasonable and vexatious.

46. ACE's actions and delay as herein set forth constitute a violation of §155 of the
Insurance Code.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Standard Parking Corporation, prays for entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against defendant, ACE American Insurance Company, and awarding it the following relief:
a) Statutory penalties of up to $60,000;
b) Attorneys' fees and costs; and,
c) Such other and further relief that this Court deems equitable and just.
Respectfully submitted,"

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.