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

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY v. CARLOS G. SANMARTIN

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: 
2:13-cv-05498 Search Pacer
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
District of New Jersey
Date Filed: 
Sep 13 2013

"COUNT I
(Negligence)

13. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments in paragraphs 1 through 12 as though each were fully set forth at length herein.

14. The roof failure referred to above and consequent damage and destruction to DC Plastic Inc.’s real and personal was caused by the negligence, carelessness, gross negligence and negligent omissions of the defendant, its agents, servants and/or employees in
a). failing to properly secure the roof base sheet;
b). failing to torch down the modified bitumen roof membrane to the base sheet; and
c). failing to attach the proper metal edge to the building’s roof system.

15. By reason of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness, gross negligence and negligent omissions of Fluidmaster, the roof failure referred to above took place and resulted in damage and destruction to DC Plastics, Inc.’s real and personal property, and caused them to suffer business income loss and extra expenses.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Westchester Surplus Lines, Inc. demands judgment against the defendant Carlos G. Sanmartin, a/k/a Sanmartin Construction Co. and/or Sanmartin Construction Limited Liability Company, in an amount to be determined at trial for compensatory damages, delay damages, costs of this action and for such further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT II
(Breach of Contract)

16. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein the averments in paragraphs 1 through 15 as though each were fully set forth at length herein.

17. Pursuant to the oral contract referred to above, the defendant was contractually obligated to install the roof in a workman-like manner, and in accordance with accepted industry standards.

18. The defendant breached its contract by:
a). failing to properly secure the roof base sheet;
b). failing to torch down the modified bitumen roof membrane to the base sheet; and
c). failing to attached the proper metal edge to the building’s roof system.

19. The damages sustained by DC Plastics, Inc. were caused by the defendant’s aforesaid breaches of contract.

20. Upon discovery of the aforesaid breaches of warranties and resulting loss, plaintiff gave prompt and reasonable notice to defendant, but defendant has refused to reimburse plaintiff for the aforementioned damage.

21. By reason of the aforesaid breaches of contract, the roof failure referred to above occurred and resulted in damage and destruction to DC Plastic Inc.’s property and a loss of its use.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Westchester Surplus Lines, Inc. demands judgment against the defendant Carlos G Sanmartin, a/k/a Sanmartin Construction Co. and/or Sanmartin Construction Limited Liability Company, in an amount to be determined at trial for compensatory damages, delay damages, costs of this action and for such further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT III
(Breach of Warranty)

22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein the averments in paragraphs 1 through 21 as though each were fully set forth at length herein.

23. Pursuant to the oral contract referred to above, the defendant impliedly warranted that it would install the roof in a workman-like manner, and in accordance with accepted industry standards and applicable codes.

24. The defendant breached these warranties by:
a). failing to properly secure the roof base sheet;
b). failing to torch down the modified bitumen roof membrane to the base sheet; and
c). failing to attached the proper metal edge to the building’s roof system.

25. The damages sustained by DC Plastics, Inc. were caused by the defendant’s aforesaid breaches of warranties.

26. Upon discovery of the aforesaid breaches of warranties and resulting loss, plaintiff gave prompt and reasonable notice to defendant, but defendant has refused to reimburse plaintiff for the aforementioned damage.

27. By reason of the aforesaid breaches of warranties, the roof failure referred to above occurred and resulted in damage and destruction to DC Plastic Inc.’s property and a loss of its use."

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.