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

Summa Engineering Inc 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 or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
5:15-cv-01024 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Summa Engineering Inc
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
Western District of Oklahoma
Date Filed: 
Sep 18 2015


COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Summa Engineering, Inc., and for its claims against Defendant
Ace American Insurance Company, alleges and states as follows:

  1. Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
    Oklahoma, with its principal place of business in the Western District of Oklahoma.
  2. Defendant, Ace American Insurance Company, is an insurance corporation organized
    and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of
    business in the State of Pennsylvania.
  3. The amount in controversy in this matter is in excess of $75,000.00.
  4. Complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties herein.
  5. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §1332 and 28
    U.S.C.A. §2201.
  6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391.
  7. This action arises out of the drilling of an oil well (the “Well”) in 2010 in Grant
    County, Oklahoma, within this District.
  1. At all relevant times in this matter, Plaintiff was the named insured under a policy of
    commercial general liability insurance issued by Defendant, policy number
    G23867333 003.
  2. As a result of the drilling of the Well, claims were made against Plaintiff for, among
    other things, negligence and fraud. Suits were filed against Plaintiff in Texas related
    to the Well in 2011.
  3. The Texas suits were ultimately dismissed and the claims refiled against Plaintiff in
    Grant County, Oklahoma, in 2014.
  4. Plaintiff made a demand for defense and indemnity from Defendant under the policy
    of liability insurance in question.
  5. Defendant denied Plaintiff a defense and indemnity, forcing Plaintiff to litigate the
    claims at its own expense.
  6. The claims against Plaintiff were tried in Grant County, Oklahoma, and ajury verdict
    was rendered on May 1, 2015, finding all issues in favor of Plaintiff.
  7. Defendant’s failure to provide Plaintiff with a defense constituted a breach of the
    insurance contract between the parties.
  8. Further, as Plaintiff anticipates appellate proceedings related to the jury verdict
    entered in the underlying case, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief from this Court,
    pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §2201, that Defendant has an ongoing duty and obligation
    to indemnify and defend Plaintiff for the claims and suits filed against it as a result
    of the drilling of the Well, including any appellate proceedings to come.
  1. As a result of Defendant’s breach of contract, Plaintiff seeks judgment against
    Defendant for the sums it was compelled to pay out of pocket for its defense of the
    claims against it, all in an amount in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff, Summa Engineering, Inc., prays this
Court enter its Judgment declaring that Defendant has an ongoing duty to indemnify and defend
Plaintiff, and granting Plaintiff j udgment for breach of contract agai nst Defendant for all sums which
Plaintiff has been compelled to pay for its defense as a result of Defendant’s wrongful denial of
coverage, together with its costs, attorney fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems
just and equitable.

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.