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

WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. SWEPORTS, LTD. 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: 
1:11-cv-03473 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Westchester Fire Insurance Company
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Northern District of Illinois
Date Filed: 
May 24 2011

"WHEREFORE, WF respectfully requests this Honorable Court find and enter judgment, declaring as follows:

1. WHEREFORE, WF respectfully requests this Honorable Court find and enter judgment, declaring that there is no defense or indemnity owed for SWEPORTS, and CLARKE and/or LEISNER in their capacity as directors or officers of SWEPORTS, for the Underlying Lawsuits as they constitute Claims first made and reported prior to the inception of the SWEPORTS policy.

2. WHEREFORE, WF respectfully requests this Honorable Court find and enter judgment, declaring that there is no defense or indemnity coverage for SWEPORTS, CLARKE or LEISNER under Section C.1.b of the SWEPORTS policy, because the Underlying Lawsuits involve Interrelated Wrongful Acts that relate to Claims previously tendered under another policy.

3. WHEREFORE, WF respectfully requests this Honorable Court find and enter judgment, declaring that there is no defense or indemnity coverage for SWEPORTS, CLARKE or LEISNER because these demand letters were pending before SWEPORTS’ Continuity Date and therefore, Exclusion C.1.l. precludes coverage.

4. WHEREFORE, WF respectfully requests this Honorable Court find and enter judgment, declaring that there is no defense or indemnity coverage for SWEPORTS, CLARKE or LEISNER for the Underlying Lawsuits, because the Defendants had knowledge of facts, circumstances or situations prior to the Continuity Date (5/22/2007) that could reasonably be expected to give rise to a Claim, and therefore, Exclusion C.1.l. precludes coverage.

5. WHEREFORE, WF respectfully requests this Honorable Court find and enter judgment, declaring that there is no defense or indemnity coverage for SWEPORTS, CLARKE
or LEISNER under the SWEPORTS policy for the Underlying Lawsuits, as CLARKE made material misrepresentations or omissions in the Sweports Application which precludes coverage.

6. WHEREFORE, WF respectfully requests this Honorable Court find and enter judgment, declaring that there is no coverage for SWEPORTS or CLARKE as a director and officer of SWEPORTS or any other individual acting in his or her capacity as a director and/or officer of SWEPORTS under the UMF Policy.

7. WHEREFORE, WF respectfully requests this Honorable Court find and enter judgment, declaring that, pursuant to Section B.7., there is no coverage for damages sought by
the various alleged shareholders who filed the Underlying Lawsuits for amounts owed to them under any contract or agreement.

8. WHEREFORE, WF respectfully requests this Honorable Court to find and enter judgment, declaring that to the extent that any of the Plaintiffs in the Underlying Lawsuits are deemed to be current or former directors or officers of UMF and/or SWEPORTS, there is no coverage for the Defendants under either the UMF or SWEPORTS Policies based upon the Insured v. Insured Exclusion.

9. WHEREFORE, WF respectfully requests this Honorable Court find and enter judgment, declaring that, pursuant to Exclusions C.1.f.i. and C.1.f.ii., there is no coverage for Claims based upon or in any way involving a dishonest or fraudulent act by CLARKE, or CLARKE’S gain of any profit or financial advantage to which he was not entitled.

10. WHEREFORE, WF respectfully requests this Honorable Court find and enter judgment, declaring that, pursuant to the Exclusions in Section C.2.b. there is no coverage for
Claims based upon, arising out of, or in any way involving intellectual property of any products, technologies or services.

11. WHEREFORE, WF respectfully requests this Honorable Court find and enter judgment, declaring that, pursuant to Exclusion C.2.a., there is no coverage for Claims based upon, arising out of, or in any way involving the breach of any contract or agreement entered into by SWEPORTS or UMF.

12. WHEREFORE, WF respectfully requests this Honorable Court find and enter judgment, declaring that, pursuant to Section B.7., there is no coverage for damages sought by the various alleged shareholders who filed the Underlying Lawsuits for amounts owed to them under any contract or agreement."

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.