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

XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al v. MICHAEL W. PERRY

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: 
2:11-cv-02078 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
XL Specialty Insurance Company
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Central District of California
Date Filed: 
Mar 10 2012

"FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(DECLARATION OF NO COVERAGE UNDER THE 08-09 SIDE A POLICIES FOR THE DANIELS LITIGATION)

90. Plaintiffs reallege in full and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 89 above.

91. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and defendants, on the other hand, relating to their respective rights and obligations under the 08-09 Side A Polices.

92. The Plaintiffs submit that no coverage exists for the Daniels Litigation under the 08-09 Side A Policies for at least three separate reasons.

93. First, the Daniels Litigation is based upon, arises out of, directly or indirectly resulted from, is in consequence of, or in any way involves the Tripp Litigation or any fact, circumstance, situation, event, transaction or series of facts, circumstances, situations, events or transactions underlying or alleged in the Tripp Litigation. Accordingly, the Daniels Litigation is excluded from coverage under the 08-09 Side A Policies pursuant to the Specific Litigation Exclusion contained in the 08-09 XL Policy and incorporated into the other 08-09 Side A Policies.

94. Second, the Daniels Litigation is based upon, arises out of, directly or indirectly resulted from, is in consequence of, or in any way involves any fact, circumstance or situation, transaction, event or wrongful act which, before the Inception Date of the 08-09 Side A Policies, was the subject of any notice given under any other management liability insurance, directors' and officers' insurance, or any similar insurance. Accordingly, coverage is excluded pursuant to Section 111(B)(2) of the 08-09 XL Policy, as incorporated into the other 08-09 Side A Policies.

95. Third, the Daniels Litigation arises from the same Interrelated Wrongful Acts as the Tripp Litigation. Accordingly, these cases, along with other related cases, form a single Claim first made prior to the inception of the 08-09 Side A Policies.

96. The defendants contend that coverage is afforded for the Daniels Litigation under the 08-09 Side A Policies

97. A declaratory judgment is necessary at this time to determine the rights and obligations of the parties under the 08-09 Side A Policies.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(DECLARATION OF NO COVERAGE UNDER THE 08-09 SIDE A POLICIES FOR THE FDIC LITIGATION)

98. Plaintiffs reallege in full and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 89 above.

99. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and defendants, on the other hand, relating to their respective rights and obligations under the 08-09 Side A Policies.

100. The Plaintiffs submit that no coverage exists for the FDIC Litigation under the 08-09 Side A Policies for at least three separate reasons.

101. First, the FDIC Litigation is based upon, arises out of, directly or indirectly resulted from, is in consequence of, or in any way involves the Tripp Litigation or any fact, circumstance, situation, event, transaction or series of facts, circumstances, situations, events or transactions underlying or alleged in the Tripp Litigation.  Accordingly, the FDIC Litigation is excluded from coverage under the 08-09 Side A Policies pursuant to the Specific Litigation Exclusion contained in the 08-09 XL Policy and incorporated into the other 08-09 Side A Policies.

102. Second, the FDIC Litigation is based upon, arises out of, directly or indirectly resulted from, is in consequence of, or in any way involves any fact, circumstance or situation, transaction, event or wrongful act which, before the Inception Date of the 08-09 Side A Policies, was the subject of any notice given under any other management liability insurance, directors' and officers' insurance, or any similar insurance. Accordingly, coverage is excluded pursuant to Section 111(B)(2) of the 08-09 XL Policy, as incorporated into the other 08-09 Side A Policies.

103. Third, the FDIC Litigation arises from the same Interrelated Wrongful Acts as the Tripp Litigation. Accordingly, these cases, along with other related cases, form a single Claim first made prior to the inception of the 08-09 Side A Policies.

104. The defendants contend that coverage is afforded for the FDIC Litigation under the 08-09 Side A Policies.

105. A declaratory judgment is necessary at this time to determine the rights and obligations of the parties under the 08-09 Side A Policies.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(DECLARATION OF NO COVERAGE UNDER THE 08-09 SIDE A POLICIES FOR THE SIEGEL LITIGATION)

106. Plaintiffs reallege in full and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 89 above.

107. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and defendants, on the other hand, relating to their respective rights and obligations under the 08-09 Side A Policies.

108. No coverage exists for the Siegel Litigation under the 08-09 Side A Policies for at least four separate reasons.

109. First, the Siegel Litigation is based upon, arises out of, directly or indirectly resulted from, is in consequence of, or in any way involves the Tripp Litigation or any fact, circumstance, situation, event, transaction or series of facts, circumstances situations, events or transactions underlying or alleged in the Tripp Litigation Accordingly, the Siegel Litigation is excluded from coverage under the 08-09 Side A Policies pursuant to the Specific Litigation Exclusion contained in the 2008-09 XL Policy and incorporated into the other 08-09 Side A Policies.

110. Second, the Siegel Litigation is based upon, arises out of, directly or indirectly resulted from, is in consequence of, or in any way involves any fact, circumstance or situation, transaction, event or wrongful act which, before the Inception Date of the 08-09 Side A Policies, was the subject of any notice given under any other management liability insurance, directors' and officers' insurance, or any similar insurance. Accordingly, coverage is excluded pursuant to Section 111(B)(2) of the 2008- 09 XL Policy, incorporated into the 08-09 Side A Policies.

111. Third, the Siegel Litigation arises from the same Interrelated Wrongful Acts as the Tripp Litigation. Accordingly, these cases, along with other related cases, form a single Claim first made prior to the inception of the 08-09 Side A Policies

112. Fourth, to the extent that the Siegel Litigation is not deemed made prior to the inception of the 08-09 Side A Policies, pursuant to the 08-09 Side A Policies' Interrelated Claims provision, it does not constitute a Claim first made during the 08-09 Policy Period because it was first made after the expiration of the Policy Period of the 08- 09 Side A Policies.

113. The defendants contend that coverage is afforded for the Siegel Litigation under the 08-09 Side A Policies.

114. A declaratory judgment is necessary at this time to determine the rights and obligations of the parties under the 08-09 Side A Policies.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(DECLARATION OF NO COVERAGE UNDER THE 08-09 SIDE A POLICIES FOR THE MBS LITIGATION)

115. Plaintiffs reallege in full and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 89 above.

116. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and defendants, on the other hand, relating to their respective rights and obligations under the 08-09 Side A Policies.

117. The Plaintiffs submit that no coverage exists for the MBS Litigation under the 08-09 Side A Policies for at least three separate reasons.

118. First, the MBS Litigation is based upon, arises out of, directly or indirectly resulted from, is in consequence of, or in any way involves the Tripp Litigation or any fact, circumstance, situation, event, transaction or series of facts, circumstances, situations, events or transactions underlying or alleged in the Tripp Litigation. Accordingly, the MBS Litigation is excluded from coverage under the 08-09 Side A Policies pursuant to the Specific Litigation Exclusion contained in the 08-09 XL Policy and incorporated into the other 08-09 Side A Policies.

119. Second, the MBS Litigation is based upon, arises out of, directly or indirectly resulted from, is in consequence of, or in any way involves any fact, circumstance or situation, transaction, event or wrongful act which, before the Inception Date of the 08-09 Side A Policies, was the subject of any notice given under any other management liability insurance, directors' and officers' insurance, or any similar insurance. Accordingly, coverage is excluded pursuant to Section 111(B)(2) of the 08-09 XL Policy, as incorporated into the other 08-09 Side A Policies.

120. Third, the MBS Litigation arises from the same Interrelated Wrongful Acts as the Tripp Litigation. Accordingly, these cases, along with other related cases, form a single Claim first made prior to the inception of the 08-09 Side A Policies.

121. The defendants contend that coverage is afforded for the MBS Litigation under the 08-09 Side A Polices.

122. A declaratory judgment is necessary at this time to determine the rights and obligations of the parties under the 08-09 Side A Policies.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(DECLARATION OF NO COVERAGE UNDER THE 08-09 SIDE A POLICIES FOR THE MBIA LITIGATION)

123. Plaintiffs reallege in full and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 89 above.

124. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and defendants, on the other hand, relating to their respective rights and obligations under the 08-09 Side A Policies.

125. The Plaintiffs submit that no coverage exists for the MBIA Litigation under the 08-09 Side A Policies for at least three separate reasons.

126. First, the MBIA Litigation is based upon, arises out of, directly or indirectly resulted from, is in consequence of, or in any way involves the Tripp Litigation or any fact, circumstance, situation, event, transaction or series of facts, circumstances, situations, events or transactions underlying or alleged in the Tripp Litigation.  Accordingly, the MBIA Litigation is excluded from coverage under the 08-09 Side A Policies pursuant to the Specific Litigation Exclusion contained in the 08-09 XL Policy and incorporated into the other 08-09 Side A Policies.

127. Second, the MBIA Litigation is based upon, arises out of, directly or indirectly resulted from, is in consequence of, or in any way involves any fact, circumstance or situation, transaction, event or wrongful act which, before the Inception Date of the 08-09 Side A Policies, was the subject of any notice given under any other management liability insurance, directors' and officers' insurance, or any similar insurance. Accordingly, coverage is excluded pursuant to Section 111(B)(2) of the 08-09 XL Policy, as incorporated into the other 08-09 Side A Policies.

128. Third, the MBIA Litigation arises from the same Interrelated Wrongful Acts as the Tripp Litigation. Accordingly, these cases, along with other related cases, form a single Claim first made prior to the inception of the 08-09 Side A Policies.

129. The defendants contend that coverage is afforded for the MBIA Litigation under the 08-09 Side A Policies.

130. A declaratory judgment is necessary at this time to determine the rights and obligations of the parties under the 08-09 Side A Policies.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(DECLARATION OF NO COVERAGE UNDER THE 08-09 SIDE A POLICIES FOR THE ASSURED GUARANTY LITIGATION)

131. Plaintiffs reallege in full and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 89 above.

132. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs,, on the one hand, and defendants, on the other hand, relating to their respective rights and obligations under the 08-09 Side A Policies.

133. The Plaintiffs submit that no coverage exists for the Assured Guaranty Litigation under the 08-09 Side A Policies for at least three separate reasons.

134. First, the Assured Guaranty Litigation is based upon, arises out of, directly or indirectly resulted from, is in consequence of, or in any way involves the Tripp Litigation or any fact, circumstance, situation, event, transaction or series of facts, circumstances, situations, events or transactions underlying or alleged in the Tripp Litigation. Accordingly, the Assured Guaranty Litigation is excluded from coverage under the 08-09 Side A Policies pursuant to the Specific Litigation Exclusion contained in the 08-09 XL Policy and incorporated into the other 08-09 Side A Policies.

135. Second, the Assured Guaranty Litigation is based upon, arises out of, directly or indirectly resulted from, is in consequence of, or in any way involves any fact, circumstance or situation, transaction, event or wrongful act which, before the Inception Date of the 08-09 Side A Policies, was the subject of any notice given under any other management liability insurance, directors' and officers' insurance, or any similar insurance. Accordingly, coverage is excluded pursuant to Section 111(B)(2) of the 08-09 XL Policy, as incorporated into the other 08-09 Side A Policies.

136. Third, the Assured Guaranty Litigation arises from the same Interrelated Wrongful Acts as the Tripp Litigation. Accordingly, these cases, along with other related cases, form a single Claim first made prior to the inception of the 08-09 Side A Policies.

137. The defendants contend that coverage is afforded for the Assured Guaranty Litigation under the 08-09 Side A Policies.

138. A declaratory judgment is necessary at this time to determine the rights and obligations of the parties under the 08-09 Side A Policies."

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.