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

AMERIFREIGHT, INC. v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY complaint

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.

Embedded Scribd iPaper - Requires Javascript and Flash Player

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Laura Each Nguyen, SBN 203141
Law Offices of Laura Each Nguyen, PC
2629 Townsgate Road, Suite 235
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (818) 665-4083
Facsimile: (818) 206-3230
Attorneys for Plaintiff
AMERIFREIGHT, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AMERIFREIGHT, INC., a California
corporation
Plaintiff,
vs.
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES
INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation; and
DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.: 2:14-CV-06937
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
1. Breach of Contract, Count 1
2. Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith
and Fair Dealing, Count 1
3. Breach of Contract, Count 2
4. Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith
and Fair Dealing, Count 2
J URY DEMANDED
Plaintiff AMERIFREIGHT, INC.(hereinafter sometimes referred to as "PLAINTIFF" or
"AMERIFREIGHT") hereby complains and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. PLAINTIFF brings this action against WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES
INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 1 THROUGH 50 (hereinafter collectively
"DEFENDANTS") due to DEFENDANTS' wrongful and improper failure to properly adjust and
pay AMERIFREIGHT’S claims of losses covered under a policy of insurance purchased by
AMERIFREIGHT from WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE (hereinafter
COMPLAINT - 1
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE") for all direct losses caused by criminal activity of
third parties. The claim at issue stems from actual damages due to two incidences of theft of
personal property at AMERIFREIGHT’s Elwood and Stimson facilities.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
2. This is an action for damages for breach of contract and breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332
(diversity) because the parties to the action are residents of differing states and the amount in
controversy is in excess of $75,000. Venue is proper in the Central District of California
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b). J ury is demanded by Plaintiff.
PARTIES TO THE ACTION
3. PLAINTIFF AMERIFREIGHT is a California corporation, doing business as
Logistics Team, with its principal place of business in City of Industry, California.
4. AMERIFREIGHT is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
of Georgia, with its principal place of business in Fulton County, Georgia.
5. PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued
herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues those defendants by such fictitious
names. PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when
ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the
fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged,
and that PLAINTIFF's damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by said defendants.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
6. On or about September 2009, AMERIFREIGHT purchased from
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS Policy No. IMC 121042109, a comprehensive portfolio of
insurance which included coverage for both cargo claims and warehouse claims with policy
limits of $200,000 for any one unit and $400,000 each occurrence per claim for warehouse theft,
along with a $1,000 deductible and limits of $200,000 for any one unit and $400,000 each
COMPLAINT - 2
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
occurrence per cargo claim along with a $5,000 deductible (hereinafter "the WESTCHESTER
SURPLUS POLICY"). AMERIFREIGHT paid WESTCHESTER SURPLUS a premium of
$37,359.00 for the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY. The policies of insurance were
originally issued on October 17, 2010 and were renewed on October 17, 2011 and were active
from October 17, 2010 through October 17, 2012.
7. On or about the September 26, 2011, AMERIFREIGHT discovered that a cargo
trailer that had been delivered, but not yet unloaded had been stolen from AMERIFREIGHT’s
Elwood Yard. The unknown thieves stole $272,728.00 worth of electronics. AMERIFREIGHT
contacted the police and filed a police report (hereinafter referred to as the “September Loss”).
8. On or about November 3, 2011, AMERIFREIGHT reported the September Loss
claim to its carrier Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company and a proof of loss showing a
loss of $272,728.00 was provided.
9. On or about November 3, 2011, AMERIFREIGHT discovered that it had been the
victim of a burglary of its Stimson warehouse. The unknown thieves stole $97,533.08 worth of
electronics. Thereafter, AMERIFREIGHT reported the theft to the police and performed a
diligent and reasonable investigation of the theft (hereafter referred to as the “November
Warehouse Loss”).
10. On or about November 4, 2011, AMERIFREIGHT reported the November
Warehouse Loss claim to its carrier Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company and provided
a proof of loss showing a loss of $97,533.08.
11. All premiums due under the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY have been
fully paid on behalf of PLAINTIFF and PLAINTIFF has fully performed, or has been excused
from performing, all terms and conditions required by the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS
POLICY.
12. On December 2011, AMERIFREIGHT received notice that WESTCHESTER
SURPLUS had received the tender of the claim and had assigned J P Heeger of Ace Insurance
(hereinafter “ACE”) as the adjustor on the file. AMERIFREIGHT is informed and believes that
COMPLAINT - 3
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ACE is a subsidiary of and/or otherwise affiliated with WESTCHESTER SURPLUS and that J P
Heeger was, at all times mentioned herein, acting as an agent of WESTCHESTER SURPLUS in
adjusting the claims for both the September and November Losses.
13. In December 2011, AMERIFREIGHT received an email from Mr. Heeger
informing AMERIFREIGHT’s risk manager that, on behalf of WESTCHESTER SURPLUS
INSURANCE, he had received the documents in support of AMERIFREIGHT’s proof of claim.
14. In early 2013, Mr. Heeger requested additional documents and on April 25, 2013,
all documents requested by Mr. Heeger were provided.
15. In or about August 2013, AMERIFREIGHT’s in house counsel, J ames Tran,
contacted Mr. Heeger to determine why the claim had not been adjusted. On September 6, 2013,
Mr. Heeger responded and indicated that he believed that there was less coverage because of a
contractual provision despite the fact that the policy covered the reasonable value of all property.
16. On September 12, 2013, AMERIFREIGHT’s counsel, J ames Tran responded to
Mr. Heeger and advised him that he was incorrect and also requested a copy of the claim file.
17. Thereafter, Mr. Tran and Mr. Heeger spoke by telephone in order to clarify
various issues. Following said conversation, Mr. Heeger requested additional documents. On
October 16, 2013, the additional requested documents were provided.
18. On October 21, 2013, Mr. Tran attempted to follow up with Mr. Heeger via email.
Mr. Heeger replied to Mr. Tran’s email, indicating that he would address it the following day.
19. On October 23, 2013, Mr. Tran left a follow up email for Mr. Heeger as he had
received no further communication.
20. On October 25, 2013, Mr. Heeger sent Mr. Tran an email indicating that due to
other obligations he would not be able to address this issue for a week or so.
21. On November 5, 2013, Mr. Tran followed up with Mr. Heeger once again. On
November 8, 2013, Mr. Heeger responded indicating that he would like to have a telephone call
with AMERIFREIGHT before he issues his final opinion, but he made no arrangements for said
telephone call.
COMPLAINT - 4
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22. On December 3, 2013, Mr. Tran attempted to follow up once again. Mr. Tran
received no response to said communication.
23. On February 25, 2014, AMERIFREIGHT’s risk manager, Mike Oliver contacts
Mr. Heeger and once again, requested a position on the outstanding claims. In this
correspondence, Mr. Oliver advised Mr. Heeger that AMERIFREIGHT would file suit if a
satisfactory resolution could not be reached shortly.
24. On or about February 26, 2014, Mr. Heeger and Mr. Oliver had a telephone
conversation and Mr. Heeger assured him that he would obtain a response to the claim shortly.
25. On J uly 17, 2014, Laura Each Nguyen, counsel for AMERIFREIGHT, contacted
Mr. Heeger and demanded his final position. Mr. Heeger responded to this correspondence and
requested further documentation. This documentation was provided on J uly 18, 2014.
AMERIFREIGHT has received no further communication from Mr. Heeger or Westchester
Surplus Insurance.
26. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE, by and through ACE, has engaged
in a number of delay tactics and obstructive behaviors including, but not limited to, refusing to
respond to communications, requesting information that is not relevant to the claim in order to
justify delay and obstruction, failing to pay amounts due and payable, and causing
AMERIFREIGHT damages as a result of WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE's delay
tactics and refusal to pay amounts owed for AMERIFREIGHT’s claim for damages arising out
of the September and November claims.
FIRST CAUSE OFACTION
Breach of Contract
(Count 1)
Against All Defendants
27. AMERIFREIGHT hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, as
though fully set forth herein.
COMPLAINT - 5
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28. In or about 2010, AMERIFREIGHT entered into a business relationship with
Defendant WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE for the provision of a policy of
insurance.
29. In or about October 17, 2010, WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE issued
to AMERIFREIGHT a comprehensive portfolio of policies of insurance which covered both
cargo and warehouse losses for the period of October 17, 2010 at 12:01 a.m. through October 17,
2011 at 12:00 a.m.
30. This WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY bore policy number 121042109 001
A true and correct copy of the relevant portions of the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY is
attached to the Complaint as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference.
31. Under the terms of the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY, AMERIFREIGHT
was required to pay the policy premium and certain deductible amounts and, in return,
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE was required to pay all covered claims made by
AMERIFREIGHT or any other named insureds.
32. AMERIFREIGHT performed all conditions, covenants, promises, and obligations
in accordance with the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY, including but not limited to
paying all premium amounts and deductible amounts. If AMERIFREIGHT has not fully
performed all conditions, covenants, promises, obligations, and requirements to be performed
pursuant to policy number 121042109 001, AMERIFREIGHT’S performance was excused by
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE's acts, omissions, or other action, including but not
limited to WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE's breach of contract, unclean hands, or
waiver.
33. Under the terms of the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY, WESTCHESTER
SURPLUS INSURANCE agreed to pay all covered and substantiated claims as they became due.
34. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE breached the terms of the
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY by failing to properly investigate, acknowledge and pay
the claim made for the September Loss. PLAINTIFF alleges that DEFENDANTS' purposeful
COMPLAINT - 6
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
delay in adjusting the claim constituted a breach of the WESTCHESTER SURPLUSPOLICY
and has caused substantial damage to PLAINTIFF.
35. As a proximate result of the said breaches by WESTCHESTER SURPLUS
INSURANCE, AMERIFREIGHT has suffered damages in the amount of $272,728.00 plus
interest thereon.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Against All Defendants
(Count 1)
36. AMERIFREIGHT hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34 inclusive as
though fully set forth herein.
37. In every contract there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing such
that neither party may take any act, or omit to perform any act, that will deprive the other party
of the benefits of the contract. DEFENDANTS have failed to act in good faith and to fairly deal
in the following particulars:
A. DEFENDANTS have knowingly failed to acknowledge and act reasonably
promptly upon communications with respect to the September Loss claim which was
covered under the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY.
B. DEFENDANTS have failed to adopt and implement reasonable standards
for the prompt investigation and processing of claims arising under insurance policies;
C. DEFENDANTS have failed to affirm or deny coverage of the September
Loss claim within a reasonable time after proof of loss requirements have been completed
and submitted by AMERIFREIGHT.
D. DEFENDANTS have not attempted in good faith to effectuate prompt,
fair and equitable settlements of the September Loss claim despite the fact that liability
has become clear;
COMPLAINT - 7
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E. Defendant WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE, by and through
Mr. Heeger, has acknowledged verbally that the September Loss occurred and a covered
loss was sustained. However, in bad faith, DEFENDANTS have failed to timely and in
good faith effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of The September Loss.
Instead, WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE has requested extraneous
information and has failed to make any substantive communication with
AMERIFREIGHT in more than six months.
F. DEFENDANTS have not denied the claim, but have, in bad faith, simply
refused to adjust the claim.
38. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE has acted unreasonably and without proper cause as
it has failed to conduct a full, fair, and through investigation of all of the bases of the September
Loss claim.
39. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS has acted unreasonably in that WESTCHESTER SURPLUS had a
duty to diligently search for and consider evidence that supported coverage of the claimed loss
and WESTCHESTER SURPLUS has failed to do so.
40. PLAINTIFF further alleges that DEFENDANTS have failed to investigate
PLAINTIFF'S claim in bad faith and have further failed to reasonably communicate with
PLAINTIFF concerning the substance of the September Loss claim. DEFENDANTS' conduct in
failing to substantively respond to the claim and engaging in a series of delay tactics, without
cause, was objectively unreasonable and constituted bad faith on the part of DEFENDANTS.
41. DEFENDANTS had an obligation of good faith and fair dealing which
encompassed qualities of decency and humanity inherent in its responsibilities. In every
insurance contract there is an implicit provision that neither party will do anything to injure the
right of the other party to receive the full benefits of the contract.
COMPLAINT - 8
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
42. AMERIFREIGHT is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
DEFENDANTS' wrongful and improper bad faith conduct was all undertaken fraudulently,
maliciously, oppressively and in conscious disregard of AMERIFREIGHT’s rights as a
policyholder. By reason of the foregoing, AMERIFREIGHT is entitled to punitive damages
from each defendant in an amount to be determined at the time of trial and in proportion to the
wealth of that defendant.
43. As a result of WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE's breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding AMERIFREIGHT’s claims and in order for
AMERIFREIGHT to recover the benefits due to AMERIFREIGHT from WESTCHESTER
SURPLUS INSURANCE under the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY, AMERIFREIGHT
has been further damaged in that it has incurred attorneys' fees, expenses and costs and will incur
additional attorneys' fees, experts' fees, expenses and costs to recover the benefits due from
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE under the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY.
44. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the DEFENDANTS' conduct and false
representations and their failure to pay AMERIFREIGHT for the insurance benefits due to
AMERIFREIGHT, AMERIFREIGHT has been damaged in an amount in excess of $272,728.
THIRD CAUSE OFACTION
Breach of Contract
(Count 2)
Against All Defendants
45. AMERIFREIGHT hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 44, inclusive, as
though fully set forth herein.
46. On or about October 17, 2010, AMERIFREIGHT entered into a business
relationship with Defendant WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE for the provision of a
policy of insurance.
COMPLAINT - 9
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
47. In or about October 17, 2011, WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE issued
to AMERIFREIGHT a comprehensive portfolio of policies of insurance which covered both
cargo and warehouse losses for the period of October 17, 2011 at 12:01 a.m. through October 17,
2012 at 12:00 a.m. These policies were a renewal of the prior year’s policies.
48. This WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY bore policy number 121042109 002
A true and correct copy of the relevant portions of the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY is
attached to the Complaint as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference.
49. Under the terms of the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY, AMERIFREIGHT
was required to pay the policy premium and certain deductible amounts and, in return,
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE was required to pay all covered claims made by
AMERIFREIGHT or any other named insureds.
50. AMERIFREIGHT performed all conditions, covenants, promises, and obligations
in accordance with the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY, including but not limited to
paying all premium amounts and deductible amounts. If AMERIFREIGHT has not fully
performed all conditions, covenants, promises, obligations, and requirements to be performed
pursuant to policy number 121042109 002. AMERIFREIGHT’S performance was excused by
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE's acts, omissions, or other action, including but not
limited to WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE's breach of contract, unclean hands, or
waiver.
51. Under the terms of the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY, WESTCHESTER
SURPLUS INSURANCE agreed to pay all covered and substantiated claims as they became due.
52. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE breached the terms of the
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY by failing to properly investigate, acknowledge and pay
the claim made for the November Loss. PLAINTIFF alleges that DEFENDANTS' purposeful
delay in adjusting the claim constituted a breach of the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY
and has caused substantial damage to PLAINTIFF.
COMPLAINT - 10
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
53. As a proximate result of the said breaches by WESTCHESTER SURPLUS
INSURANCE, AMERIFREIGHT has suffered damages in the amount of $97,533.08 plus
interest thereon.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Against All Defendants
(Count 2)
54. AMERIFREIGHT hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 53 inclusive as
though fully set forth herein.
55. In every contract there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing such
that neither party may take any act, nor omit to perform any act, that will deprive the other party
of the benefits of the contract. DEFENDANTS have failed to act in good faith and to fairly deal
in the following particulars:
G. DEFENDANTS have knowingly failed to acknowledge and act reasonably
promptly upon communications with respect to the November Loss claim which was
covered under the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY.
H. DEFENDANTS have failed to adopt and implement reasonable standards
for the prompt investigation and processing of claims arising under insurance policies;
I. DEFENDANTS have failed to affirm or deny coverage of the November
Loss claim within a reasonable time after proof of loss requirements have been completed
and submitted by AMERIFREIGHT.
J . DEFENDANTS have not attempted in good faith to effectuate prompt,
fair and equitable settlements of the November Loss claim despite the fact that liability
has become clear;
K. Defendant WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE, by and through
Mr. Heeger, has acknowledged verbally that the November Loss occurred and a covered
loss was sustained. However, in bad faith, DEFENDANTS have failed to timely and in
COMPLAINT - 11
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
good faith effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of the November Loss.
Instead, WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE has requested extraneous
information and has failed to make any substantive communication with
AMERIFREIGHT in more than six months.
L. DEFENDANTS have not denied the claim, but have, in bad faith, simply
refused to adjust the claim.
56. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE has acted unreasonably and without proper cause as
it has failed to conduct a full, fair, and through investigation of all of the bases of the claim.
57. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE has acted unreasonably in that WESTCHESTER
SURPLUS INSURANCE had a duty to diligently search for and consider evidence that
supported coverage of the claimed loss and WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE has
failed to do so.
58. PLAINTIFF further alleges that DEFENDANTS have failed to investigate
PLAINTIFF'S claim in bad faith and have further failed to reasonably communicate with
PLAINTIFF concerning the substance of the November Loss claim. DEFENDANTS' conduct in
failing to substantively respond to the claim and engaging in a series of delay tactics, without
cause, was objectively unreasonable and constituted bad faith on the part of DEFENDANTS.
59. DEFENDANTS had an obligation of good faith and fair dealing which
encompassed qualities of decency and humanity inherent in its responsibilities. In every
insurance contract there is an implicit provision that neither party will do anything to injure the
right of the other party to receive the full benefits of the contract.
60. AMERIFREIGHT is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
DEFENDANTS' wrongful and improper bad faith conduct was all undertaken fraudulently,
maliciously, oppressively and in conscious disregard of AMERIFREIGHT’s rights as a
policyholder. By reason of the foregoing, AMERIFREIGHT is entitled to punitive damages
COMPLAINT - 12
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
from each defendant in an amount to be determined at the time of trial and in proportion to the
wealth of that defendant.
61. As a result of WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE's breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding AMERIFREIGHT’s claims and in order for
AMERIFREIGHT to recover the benefits due to AMERIFREIGHT from WESTCHESTER
SURPLUS INSURANCE under the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY, AMERIFREIGHT
has been further damaged in that it has incurred attorneys' fees, expenses and costs and will incur
additional attorneys' fees, experts' fees, expenses and costs to recover the benefits due from
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS INSURANCE under the WESTCHESTER SURPLUS POLICY.
62. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the DEFENDANTS' conduct and false
representations and their failure to pay AMERIFREIGHT for the insurance benefits due to
AMERIFREIGHT, AMERIFREIGHT has been damaged in an amount in excess of $97,533.08.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
a. For damages in the sum of $272,728.00 and more, according to proof.
b. For prejudgment interest on said sum at the maximum legal rate;
c. For costs of suit incurred by AMERIFREIGHT herein; and
d. For such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
2. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD
FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
a. For damages in the sum of $272,728 and more, according to proof.
b. For prejudgment interest on said sum at the maximum legal rate;
c. For reasonable attorneys' fees, experts' fees, expenses and other costs
incurred by AMERIFREIGHT to recover the insurance benefits due to
AMERIFREIGHT;
COMPLAINT - 13
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d. For punitive damages according to proof and in proportion to the wealth of
each defendant;
e. For costs of suit incurred by AMERIFREIGHT herein; and
f. For such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
3. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
a. For damages in the sum of $97,533.08 and more, according to proof.
b. For prejudgment interest on said sum at the maximum legal rate;
c. For costs of suit incurred by AMERIFREIGHT herein; and
d. For such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
4. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD
FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
a. For damages in the sum of $97,533.08 and more, according to proof.
b. For prejudgment interest on said sum at the maximum legal rate;
c. For reasonable attorneys' fees, experts' fees, expenses and other costs
incurred by AMERIFREIGHT to recover the insurance benefits due to
AMERIFREIGHT;
d. For punitive damages according to proof and in proportion to the wealth of
each defendant;
e. For costs of suit incurred by AMERIFREIGHT herein; and
f. For such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
Dated: September 5, 2014
/s/ Laura Nguyen
Laura Each Nguyen, Attorney for
Plaintiff AMERIFREIGHT
COMPLAINT - 14
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
COMPLAINT - 15
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT B
COMPLAINT - 16
Case 2:14-cv-06937-PSG-SH Document 1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:16

Published under a Creative Commons License By attribution, non-commercial
date: 
Fri, 2014-09-05
AttachmentSize
D.E. 1 Complaint.pdf127.45 KB

Like us on facebook!