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

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA v. RANEY GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 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: 
2:11-cv-02011 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of California
Date Filed: 
Jul 29 2011

"On information and belief, Travelers alleges that Defendant Ace American Insurance Company (“Ace”), is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State o Pennsylvania and has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania Travelers is also informed and believes and thereon alleges that Ace was at all relevant times either admitted to do business as an insurer in the State of California or authorized to sell insurance in the State of California through a licensed surplus lines broker or other permissible means. Raney and Ace will hereinafter be referred to as “Defendants.”

 

"FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY RELIEF – DEFENSE UNDER PRIMARY POLICY

21. Travelers incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 20 above.

22. Travelers alleges, pursuant to the terms, conditions, exclusions and endorsements of the Primary Policy as well as equitable principles, that Travelers has no duty to defend Raney in the Underlying Action.

23. On information and belief, Travelers alleges that Raney and/ or Ace deny Travelers’ assertions and assert the contrary.

24. By reason of the foregoing, an actual controversy exists between the parties which requires a declaratory judgment of this Court in substantially the following form: Travelers has no duty to defend Raney in the Underlying Action under the Primary Policy.

25. A judicial determination of this controversy is necessary and appropriate in order for the parties to ascertain their rights, duties and obligations under the Primary Policy. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY RELIEF – INDEMNITY UNDER THE PRIMARY POLICY

26. Travelers incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 21 above.

27. Travelers alleges, pursuant to the terms, conditions, exclusions and endorsements of the Primary Policy as well as equitable principles, that Travelers has no duty to indemnify
Raney in the Underlying Action.

28. On information and belief, Travelers alleges that Raney and/ or Ace deny Travelers’ assertions and assert the contrary.

29. By reason of the foregoing, an actual controversy exists between the parties which requires a declaratory judgment of this Court in substantially the following form: Travelers has no duty to indemnify Raney in the Underlying Action.

30. A judicial determination of this controversy is necessary and appropriate in order for the parties to ascertain their rights, duties and obligations under the Primary Policy.

 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY RELIEF – DEFENSE UNDER EXCESS POLICY

31. Travelers incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 26 above.

32. Travelers alleges, pursuant to the terms, conditions, exclusions and endorsements of the Excess Policy as well as equitable principles, that Travelers has no duty to defend Raney in
 the Underlying Action.

33. On information and belief, Travelers alleges that Raney and/ or Ace deny Travelers’ assertions and assert the contrary.

34. By reason of the foregoing, an actual controversy exists between the parties which requires a declaratory judgment of this Court in substantially the following form: Travelers has no duty to defend Raney in the Underlying Action under the Excess Policy.

35. A judicial determination of this controversy is necessary and appropriate in order for the parties to ascertain their rights, duties and obligations under the Excess Policy. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY RELIEF – INDEMNITY UNDER THE EXCESS POLICY

36. Travelers incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 31 above.

37. Travelers alleges, pursuant to the terms, conditions, exclusions and endorsements of the Excess Policy as well as equitable principles, that Travelers has no duty to indemnify Raney in the Underlying Action.

38. On information and belief, Travelers alleges that Raney and/ or Ace deny Travelers’ assertions and assert the contrary.

39. By reason of the foregoing, an actual controversy exists between the parties which requires a declaratory judgment of this Court in substantially the following form: Travelers has no duty to indemnify Raney in the Underlying Action under the Excess Policy.

40. A judicial determination of this controversy is necessary and appropriate in order for the parties to ascertain their rights, duties and obligations under the Excess Policy. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth."

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.