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

WARREN DRILLING CO., INC. 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: 
2:12-cv-00425 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Warren Drilling Co., Inc.
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Southern District of Ohio
Date Filed: 
May 17 2012

"First Claim
Breach of Contract Against ACE for Failure to Defend

29. Warren Drilling incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Complaint.

30. ACE accepted premiums from Plaintiff for the Insurance Policy.

31. In so doing, ACE agreed and had a contractual duty to defend Warren Drilling against claims that were made against it, including those described in the Civil Action.

32. The Hagy's claims asserted in the Civil Action arguably or potentially could have been covered by the Insurance Policy.

33. ACE's refusal to defend Warren Drilling constituted a breach of the Insurance Policy and was a direct violation of its duties to Warren Drilling.

34. Plaintiff Warren Drilling has performed and satisfied all conditions precedent required of it under the Insurance Policy.

35. As a direct and proximate result of ACE's breach of contract, Warren Drilling was required to retain the services of legal counsel to investigate and defend the Civil Action and has sustained the damages previously described.

Second Claim
Breach of Contract Against ACE for Failure to Indemnify

36. Warren Drilling incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 3 5 of the Complaint.

37. The Hagys' claims were covered under the Insurance Policy.

38. ACE's refusal to indemnify Warren Drilling constituted a breach of the Insurance Policy and was a direct violation of its duties to Warren Drilling.

39. As a direct and proximate result of ACE's breach of contract, Warren Drilling was required to make payment to the Hagys in order to settle the Civil Action and has sustained the damages previously described.

Third Claim
Bad Faith Against ACE for Failure to Defend

40. Warren Drilling incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 3 9 of the Complaint.

41. ACE, in denying a defense to Warren Drilling in connection with the Civil Action, breached its duty to its insured, Warren Drilling, to act in good faith.

42. ACE's actions were intentional, willful, malicious, arbitrary, capricious, not reasonably justified, and/or in perverse disregard of its obligations to Warren Drilling.

43. Warren Drilling is entitled to recover punitive and/or exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

44. Warren Drilling has suffered annoyance, inconvenience, significant attorney fees, and expenses in the defense of the Civil Action as a direct and proximate result of ACE's actions in bad faith.

Fourth Claim
Bad Faith Against ACE for Failure to Indemnify

45. Warren Drilling incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 44 of the Complaint.

46. ACE, in denying indemnification to Warren Drilling in connection with the Civil Action, breached its duty to its insured, Warren Drilling, to act in good faith.

47. ACE's actions were intentional, willful, malicious, arbitrary, capricious, not reasonably justified, and in perverse disregard of its obligations to Warren Drilling.

48. Warren Drilling is entitled to punitive and/or exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

49. Warren Drilling has suffered annoyance, inconvenience, significant attorney fees, and expenses in settling and in attempting to settle the Civil Action as a direct and proximate result of ACE's actions in bad faith.

WHEREFORE, Warren Drilling Co., Inc., prays for judgment as follows:

1. For a judgment against ACE in the amount of $100,825.97 as of April 11, 2012, for legal fees, costs and expenses incurred and paid in defending the Civil Action and in attempting to obtain coverage from ACE, plus expert witness fees anticipated to be in excess of $50,000.00, plus additional expenses, costs, and fees as they accrue and become due and paid;

2. For a judgment against ACE in the amount of $40,000.00, paid by Warren Drilling Co., Inc. in settlement of the Civil Action;

3. For punitive and/or exemplary damages;

4. For recovery of its costs; and

5. For such other relief to which it may be entitled in either law or equity.

Fifth Claim
Breach of Contract Against EOT

50. Warren Drilling incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 49 of the Complaint.

51. In accordance with the terms of the Drilling Contract, EQT agreed to indemnify Warren Drilling.

52. The Hagys alleged that they sustained loss and/or damage arising out of or in connection with services performed at EQT's location by Warren Drilling.

53. None of the damages alleged in the Civil Action were attributable to any willful misconduct, negligence, or gross negligence by Warren Drilling, its employees, or its subcontractors.

54. Warren Drilling did not agree to assume liability for the damages claimed by the Hagys in the Civil Action.

55. According to ACE, none of the damages alleged in the Civil Action were covered by Warren Drilling's Insurance Policy.

56. Plaintiff Warren Drilling has performed and satisfied all conditions precedent required under the Drilling Contract.

57. In accordance with the terms of the Drilling Contract, EQT is required to indemnify, protect, and defend Warren Drilling from and against the loss and/or damage claimed by the Hagys, including the amount paid by Warren Drilling to settle the Civil Action.

Sixth Claim
Common Law Indemnification Against E QT

58. Warren Drilling incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 57 of the Complaint.

59. EQT and its agents controlled all drilling activities performed by Warren Drilling.

60. Warren Drilling is entitled to common law indemnification from EQT."

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.