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

WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. PURCELL & WARDROP, CHTD. 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: 
1:13-cv-06151 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Northern District of Illinois
Date Filed: 
Aug 28 2013

"COUNT I
Declaratory Judgment That The Underlying Complaint
Does Not Trigger The Insuring Agreement Of The Policy

34. WFIC incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 33 as if they were fully set forth herein.

35. Condition (B)(2) of the Policy's Insuring Agreement, Section I. states that coverage will attach for a claim pursuant to the terms of the Insuring Agreement provided that "at the inception date of the first Lawyers Professional Liability Policy issued by this Company to the Named Insured or its Predecessor in Business and continuously renewed and maintained in effect to the inception of this Policy Period, no Insured had a reasonable basis to believe that any Insured had breached a professional duty or a reasonable basis to believe an act, error, omission or Personal Injury might be expected to result in a Claim or Suit." Ex. B, Insuring Agreement, Section I.(B)(2), updated by Endorsement PF 28282 (04/10).

36. Pursuant to Insuring Agreement, Section I Condition (B)(2), in order for coverage to attach under the Insuring Agreement, before the inception of Purcell & Wardrope's first WFIC Policy, the insureds must not have had a reasonable basis to believe that any insured had breached a professional duty or that an act, error, omission, or Personal Injury might be expected to result in a Claim or Suit.

37. The Underlying Complaint alleges that the insureds failed to comply with court orders entered "prior to May 20, 2011" and August 15, 2011 regarding discovery, failed to respond to a motion for sanctions that was also filed "prior to May 20, 2011", allowed an order of default to be entered on May 20, 2011 and failed to prevent "substantial monetary judgments from being entered ... on September 16, 2011."

38. Purcell & Wardrope's first WFIC Policy incepted on October 8, 2011.

39. If true, the allegations of the Underlying Complaint establish that the insureds had a reasonable basis to believe that an insured had breached a professional duty and/or was aware of the potential for a claim prior to the inception of Purcell & Wardrope's first WFIC Policy on October 8, 2011.

40. Accordingly, coverage does not attach under the Policy for the Underlying Action because Condition (B)(2) of the Insuring Agreement is not satisfied.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Westchester Fire Insurance Company respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against the Defendants as follows:
(a) That an actual and judiciable controversy has arisen and now exists with respect to the parties' rights, duties and obligations under the Westchester Fire Insurance Company Policy with respect to coverage for the Underlying Action;
(b) Find and declare that Westchester Fire Insurance Company has no duty to defend Purcell & Wardrope, Joshua Lauby and/or Ami DeMarco in connection with the Underlying Action;"

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.