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

TAYLOR MINI MART 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 www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
2:14-cv-13766 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Taylor Mini Mart Inc.
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of Michigan

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES, Plaintiff TAYLOR MINI MART INC. by and through Its attorneys, Steven T Klousis
& Associates, P.C, and for its complaint against the Defendant ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
(hereinafter referred to as "Ace") states as follows

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS
1 That Plaintiff TAYLOR MINI MART Inc Is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of
business located in Wayne County Michigan, at 11796 Allen Road, Taylor, Ml 48180
2 At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff owned a gasoline station and convenience store with
petroleum underground storage tanks located 11796 Allen Road, Taylor, Ml 48180
3, That Defendant ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, is a foreign insurer, licensed to do
business in the state of Michigan as a property and casualty insurer and conducts substantial business
activity in Wayne County Michigan, that Defendant Ace is located at 436 Walnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19106
4 That venue is proper m this court pursuant to MCL BO01621
5. That jurisdiction rs proper in this court
6. That damages sought, exclusive of interest, statutory penalty interest, cost and attorney's fees,
exceed the sum of $25,000 00

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7. That Plaintiffs location was insured by an environmental risk policy issued by Defendant Ace
policy number LIST G21843209 007 (Ace Policy) and any related policies Exhibit Group -1
8. That at the Plaintiffs gasoline station, the gasoline and diesel fuels are transported from an
underground storage tanks to fuel dispensers most commonly referred to as gas pumps via a system of
pipes {Gasoline Pumping System).
9 That this system of pipes-begins at the submersible motor located at the top of the underground
storage tank(s) which provide enough pressure to move fuel from storage tanks up to the fuel dispensers
which are located above ground and end at the fuel dispenser island,
10 That gasoline is loaded into Plaintiffs underground storage tanks through the gasoline I f pipe
11. That in order to prevent fuel leakage, the Plaintiffs underground storage tank and the piping
system is a closed system
13 That the entire system of pipes is underground and not contained within any building or
structure.
14 That on or about Apnl 18, 2011, the MDEQ inspector dunng a routine inspection discovered
that there was free gasoline product In the unleaded gasoline culvert See Exhibit - Group - 2
15. That the Release was immediately reported to the State of Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality ("MDEQ") pursuant to the inspector's direction and instruction See Exhibit - 2,
16 That Plaintiff immediately notified Defendant of the release of petroleum product in the
ground.
17 That the Ace Policy was in full force and affect at the time of the failure of Plaintiffs gasoline
pumping system.
18. That following the gasoline pumping system failure, Plaintiff made a claim for its losses to
Defendant Ace. The claim was received by Defendant Ace and assigned Claim Number JY12J0419111
19. That claim number JY12J0419111 was processed and Defendant Ace denied, albeit
wrongfully, Plaintiffs claim despite the fact that Plaintiffs losses were covered by the Ace Policy
20. That on or before April 18,2011, the Plaintiffs gasoline pumping system failed resulting in the
leaking of gasoline product into the ground. See Exhibit Group -2
22. That there was a pnor unrelated release of diesel product at the subject property on or
about February 11,2005 should also have been covered by a Defendant Ace insurance policy See Exhibit
Group-2&1
23 That as a result of the leakage, Plaintiff has incurred thousands of dollars in damages apd
more expenses are anticipated to correct the gasoline contamination
24 That in an effort to mitigate damages, Plaintiff has personally financed clean-up efforts and
has put reconstruction project on hold until the contamination has been remediated resulting in substantial
delay and great financial distress upon Plaintiff
25. That the Plaintiff hired PM Environmental to perform a site assessment on the property.
26 That PM Environmental report confirmed a release a release in 2011 of gasoline product
which was separate and distinct from the 2005 release of diesel product See Exhibit - 3.
27. That Defendant has wrongfully denied Plaintiffs claim See Exhibit Group-1

COUNT! - REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as
though fully set forth herein
29. That the Ace Policy issued to the Plaintiff by Defendant Ace, according to Its terms, was in
to reimburse and/or to pay for any damages to Plaintiffs property, including its equipment and
gasoline pumping system, and to the ground as a result of any leakage of gasoline product to the ground
from the Plaintiffs gasoline pumping system See Exhibit - 1 .
30 That dunng the policy period set forth in the Ace Policy, the coverage limits for the policy issued
to Plaintiff by Defendant Ace was $1,000,000 00 for the Plaintiffs pumps, tanks and equipment and for the
cleanup of any environmental contamination and/or corrective action, further that the Defendant Ace Policy
also contained a $10,000 00 deductible per occurrence
31 That Plaintiff is the named insured under the Ace policy.
32. That the Plaintiffs business location is a scheduled location under the policy.
31. That the gasoline pumping system at Plaintiffs location is scheduled equipment under the
policy
33, That Plaintiff has incurred expenses, replacement costs as a result to the damage to the
gasoline pumping system both of which occurred and were discovered, and reported to Defendant Ace
dunng the policy penod
34 That all conditions precedent to Defendant Ace obligations to provide insurance coverage to
Plaintiff due to the damage of the gasoline pumping system and the resulting environmental contamination
at Plaintiffs Location under the Ace Policy have been met
35 That Defendant Ace has denied, albeit wrongfully, coverage to Plaintiff and failed to indemnify
Plaintiff for the amount of replacement costs and expenses occurred by Plaintiff related to the damage of
the gasoline pumping systems and for the cleanup and remediation of the environmental contamination at
the Plaintiffs location.
36 That there is an actual controversy between the parties with respect to coverage under the Ace
Policy
37. That this court had authority pursuant to 28 USC Section 2201(a) to adjudicate matters at issue
and enter its judgment declaring the rights of all parties to this action
38 That it is necessary for this court to adjudicate and declare the rights of the parties to this action
and guide the parties' future conduct and preserve the legal nghts under the Ace Policy
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TAYLOR MINI MART INC respectfully requests the court to enter an order
declaring that ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, has a duty under the policy at issue to pay any
and all remediation costs and replacement costs occurred by Plaintiff at its location for amounts up to the
limits of coverage; award Plaintiff its cost and attorney fees occurred In bnnging this action as allowed by
law, and grant Plaintiff any other relief that this court deems just and proper
COUNT II • BREACH OF CONTRACT
39 Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as
though fully set forth herein
40 That In consideration for the policy premiums paid by Plaintiff and as part of the terms of the
Ace policy of insurance, Defendant Ace agreed to pay Plaintiff for losses occurring at Plaintiffs location,
41 That Plaintiff paid to Defendant Ace the policy premium in consideration for the coverage's
provided under the Ace Policy
42 That Plaintiff provided Defendant Ace with timely notice of Plaintiffs claim under the terms of
the Ace policy and all other conditions precedent to coverage under the Ace Policy have been met
43 That Defendant Ace has denied coverage, albeit wrongfully, to Plaintiff and is thus in breach of
its contract with Plaintiff to provide Plaintiff with coverage under the terms of the Ace policy
44 That as a result of Defendant Ace's breach of the contract for Insurance, to date, Plaintiff had
been damaged in an amount in excess of $25,000 00, plus those fees occurred in having to bring this
action, including but not limited to, reasonable attorneys fees.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TAYLOR MINI MART Inc respectfully requests a judgment against ACE
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and in favor of the Plaintiff in excess of $25,000 00, plus interest,
costs attorney fees and any other relief that this court shall deem just and proper.
COUNT 111 -VIOLATION OF MCL 500.2006
45 Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as
though fully set forth herein
46 That MCL 500 288 and MCL 500 2836 provide (hat all losses shall be paid under the terms of
the insurance policy within Thirty [30] days after receipt of the proof of loss
47. That Plaintiff properly served notice of claim to Defendant Ace
48; That Defendant Ace promptly received notice of claim from Plaintiff
49 That MCL 500.2006 provides for the addition of 12% penalty interest on claims which the
Defendant Ace has failed to provide insurance benefits and coverage, for Plaintiffs claims when the
obligation to provide coverage was not reasonably in dispute,
50 That Defendant Aca has failed to provide Insurance benefits, coverage and/or to pay the claims
submitted by Plaintiff when the obligation to provide insurance coverage, insurance benefits and/or to pay
the claims was not reasonably in dispute.
51 That as direct and approximate result of Defendant Ace's wrongful conduct as set forth above,
Plaintiff is entitled to 12% penalty Interest

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TAYLOR MINI MART Inc requests judgment against defendant ACE
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, granting Plaintiff an additional 12% penalty interest as provided for
under MCL 500 206 plus costs, attorney fees and any other relief that this court shall deem just and proper.

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.