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

ZURCHER v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

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: 
2:15-cv-00132 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Avis Rent A Car System, LLC
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
District of Vermont
Date Filed: 
Jun 15 2015

COMPLAINT

Breach of Contract

Plaintiff, SHARON ZURCHER, by and through LOGEMAN, IAFRATE & LOGEMAN, P.C.,
on information and belief, says as follows:
1)    Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Livingston, State of Michigan.
2)    Defendant conducts a regular and systematic part of its business in the County
of Washtenaw, State of Michigan.
3)    Plaintiff has treating medical providers in the County of Washtenaw, State of
Michigan.
4)    The amount in controversy is within the jurisdiction of this Court by reason of
a claim for damages in whatever amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000.00)
Dollars Plaintiff is found to be entitled by the finders of fact.
5)    On or about December 20,1980, the Plaintiff was insured with the Defendant
under the provisions of an automobile insurance policy issued by the Defendant which was
then in effect under and in accordance with the provisions of MCIA 500.3101, et seq. CNo-
Fault Act") and for which applicable premiums were paid.
6)    Under the terms and conditions of the automobile insurance policy. Defendant
became obligated to pay to, or on behalf of the Plaintiff, certain expenses or losses, in the
event Plaintiff sustained bodily injury and/or death in an accident arising out of the ownership,
operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle.
7)    On December 20; 1980, in the State of Michigan/Plaintiff vvas an occupant of
a motor vehicle and was involved in a collision wherein Plaintiff did sustain accidental bodily
injuries in an automobile accident within’the meaning of Defendant's policy and the statutory'
provision, MCLA 500.3105, said injuries including but not limited to: complex left leg fracture.
.8)    # As a result of said injury producing event. Plaintiff has incurred:’
a)    Reasonable and necessary expenses for care, recovery and rehabilitation;
b)    Other personal protection benefits in accordance with the applicable no- fault
provisions.
9)    The Defendant has refused or is expected to refuse to pay the Plaintiff all
personal protection insurance benefits in accordance with the applicable no-fault provisions
and contract provisions.
10)    Reasonable proof for full payment of all personal protection insurance benefits
has been or will be supplied or obtained; but the Defendant has refused to pay or is expected
to refuse to pay in the future,
11 j    Defendant has unreasonably refused to pay the Plaintiff or has unreasonably
delayed in making proper payments to the Plaintiff contrary to MCLA. 500.3148, and continues
to do so.

COUNT II

Declaratory Relief .
12)    Plaintiff repeats and Incorporates herein all preceding paragraphs and facts
plead hereinabove.
13)    Furthermore,, a declaration of rights as between the parties is needed to
determine.:    ..
a) The applicability ofthe No-Fault Act to the claimis of the Plaintiff;
b)    The amount of medical expenses, no-fau|t interest, actual, attorney fees and
. other benefits owed to the Plaintiff;
c)    Whether, and In what amount, any reduction, set offs or reimbursements are
entitled to be claimed by the Defendant;
d)    Such other determinations, orders and judgments as are necessary to fully
Adjudicate the rights of the parties.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks damages in whatever amount in excess of Twenty-Five
Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars Plaintiff is found to be entitled, plus.interest, costs and actual
attorney fees.
 

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.