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

THE WATTLES COMPANY v. SCOTTSDALE 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: 
3:14-cv-05097 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
The Wattles Company
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Western District of Washington
Date Filed: 
Jan 31 2014

IV. COVERED LOSSES AND DAMAGES

21. The Property is "covered property" within the meaning of the Property
Insurance Policies issued by Defendants.
22. The Property sustained direct physical losses and/or damages, including ensuing
and/or resulting losses and/or damages, during the policy periods of the Property Insurance
Policies and caused by a peril or perils covered by the Property Insurance Policies. The
physical losses and/or damages, and ensuing and/or resulting losses and/or damages, include,
but are not limited to, the following:
22.1 Substantial impairment of structural integrity, imminent collapse, and abrupt
collapse of the structural members supporting the roof structure due to
hidden decay, the weight of snow, and other causes;
22.2 Premature degradation of concrete floor slabs; and
22.3 Premature degradation of concrete walls affecting the structural integrity of
the Property.
23. Wattles has also incurred losses, damages, and expenses and will continue to
incur other losses, damages, and expenses in connection with the physical losses and/or
damages and the ensuing and/or resulting losses and/or damages to the Property, which are also
covered under the Property Insurance Policies and not excluded, including but not limited to
the following:
23.1 Loss of use and loss of business income;
23.2 Extra expense incurred to reduce the overall loss;
23.3 Costs and expenses in repairing and replacing damaged portions of the
Property;
23.4 Necessary costs to tear-out and replace undamaged portions of the Property
and debris removal to effect repairs to covered damaged portions; and
23.5 Extra expense to remediate pollutants at the Property.
24. Wattles has provided timely notice to the Defendants concerning the covered
losses and damages, and all other conditions precedent to recovery under the Property
Insurance Policies have been satisfied or discharged by operation of law.
V. BREACH OF CONTRACT, CPA VIOLATIONS, AND BAD FAITH
25. The allegations above are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
26. Defendants breached the Property Insurance Policies by failing to properly
investigate and/or to acknowledge coverage and/or to pay amounts owed to Wattles. The
Defendants' failures effect an unreasonable denial of coverage, and constitute violation(s) of
Washington's Consumer Protection Act RCW 19.86 et seq. ("CPA"), and bad faith.
27. These failures have damaged Wattles in amounts to be proven at trial.
Defendants' breach(es) of the Property Insurance Policies, violation(s) of the CPA, and bad
faith, separately and together, relieve Wattles of any further duty to cooperate with Defendants
in any further investigation regarding the losses and damages that are the subject of this
lawsuit, and forfeits any and all rights of Defendants to subrogation.
28. Defendants' acts and omissions have compelled Wattles to bring this action to
obtain the full benefits due Wattles under the Property Insurance Policies. Under applicable
law, Wattles is entitled to be reimbursed all its reasonable attorney fees, consultant fees, and
litigation expenses in amounts to be proven at trial.

VI. DECLARATORY RELIEF

29. All allegations above are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
30. Physical loss or damage to property occurred at the Property during the time
period in which the Property Insurance Policies were in effect. Additionally, Wattles has
suffered, is suffering, or will suffer lost rental income, business income loss, extra expense, and
costs and expenses in repairing the Property, along with debris removal and pollution clean-up
and remediation attributable to a covered loss. All conditions precedent to coverage under the
Property Insurance Policies are satisfied, waived, or are otherwise applicable. The Property
Insurance Policies obligate defendants to pay Wattles for all such loss and damage, including
lost rental income, business income loss, extra expense, and costs and expenses related to and
associated with repairing the Property, including debris removal and pollution clean-up and
remediation attributable to the covered loss.
31. An actual controversy of a justiciable nature presently exists between Wattles
and the Defendants with respect to the Defendants' duties and obligations under the Property
Insurance Policies, in that Wattles contends the Defendants have a duty to fully reimburse and
compensate Wattles for all physical loss and damage to the Property, and resulting losses and
damage. The issuance of declaratory relief will terminate the existing controversy between the
parties.

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.