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

EMANUEL et al v. ACE AMERICAN 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
.l
NORMAN J. EMANUEL d/b/a EMANUEL TIRE COMPANY 1300 Moreland Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21216 And
*
IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT
*
* *
FOR
BALTIMORE CITY MARYLAND
EMANUEL TIRE COLLECTION OF MARYLAND, LLC 1300 Moreland Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21216 And EMANUEL TIRE MANAGEMENT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, LLC 1300 Moreland Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21216 And EMANUEL TIRE OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. 1300 Moreland Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21216 And EMANUEL TIRE TRANSPORTATION, 1300 Moreland Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21216 And LLC
*
*
* * *
CASE NO.
*
*
*
*
'I<
*
*
EMANUEL TIRE WHOLESALE OF MARYLAND, LLC * 1300 Moreland Avenue Bal~imore, Maryland 21216 * Plaintiffs Vs. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY 436 \Valnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-3703 Defendant
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
'I<
* *
*
*
*
'I<
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
The Plaintiffs, Collection Nomlan J. Emanuel d/b/a Emanuel Tire Company, Company Emanuel Tire LLC,
of Maryland,
LLC, Emanuel Tire Management
of Maryland,
Emanuel Tire of Pennsylvania,
Inc., Emanuel Tire Transportation,
LLC, and Emanuel Tire
Wholesale of Maryland, LLC (collectively "Plaintiffs"),
for its claims for Declaratory Relief
against Ace American Insurance Company ("Ace") states as follows: 1. The Plaintiff, Norman 1. Emanuel, is an individual, who is a citizen and resident
ofthe State of Maryland. Mr. Emanuel does business as Emanuel Tire Company. 2. The remaining Plaintiffs are all corporations or limited liability companies formed
and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland. 3. The principal place of business of Emanuel Tire of Pennsylvania, Inc. is located The principal place of business of the remaining Plaintiffs is
in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. Baltimore, Maryland. 4.
Ace is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business in New York. Ace is engaged in the business of issuing contracts of insurance, including commercial general liability policies. 5. Pursuant to Section 3-401 et seq. of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of
.
.
the Maryland Code, this action seeks a declaration of the respective rights and obligations of Ace and each of the Plaintiffs under an insurance policy issued by Ace to the Plaintiffs. 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Ace because the action arises from and its
Ace's transaction
of business, directly or tlu-ough agents, in the State of Maryland
issuance of an insurance policy in the State of Maryland.
2
7.
An actual controversy exists between the parties inasmuch as Ace contends and
Plaintiffs dispute, that the commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Ace to the Plaintiffs does not provide coverage for any amounts the Plaintiffs may incur as a result of legal proceedings brought against them by injured parties and wrongful death Plaintiffs arising out of a single-vehicle automobile accident which allegedly occurred on August 9, 2007 in the north bound lanes of Interstate 75, approximately one mile south of Micanopy, Alachua County, Florida (the Occurrence). FACTS 8. As a result of the Occurrence, four lawsuits have been filed against the Plaintiffs
and other defendant parties both in the State of Florida and in the State of Maryland (collectively "the Lawsuit"). The Lawsuits are as follows: Exhibit 1: Russell Williams, Sr., et al. VS. Continental Tire The Americas, LLC, et al. Circuit Court for Baltimore City, MD Case No. 24-C-IO-005762 Exhibit 2: Lakeisha Felicia Dyer, et al. VS. Continental Tire The Americas, LLC, et al. Circuit Court for Baltimore City, MD Case No. 24-C-IO-005763 Exhibit 3: Vanessa E. Harrison, et al. VS. Continental Tire The Americas, LLC, et a/. Circuit Court for Baltimo~e City, MD Case No. 24-C-IO-005764 Exhibit 4: GregOlY Harrison, et al. VS. Continental Tire North America, Inc., et al. Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, in and for Alachua County, FL Case No. 01-09-CA-4003J 9. The Lawsuits allege: (a) At the time of the Occurrence, the vehicle, a 2004 Chevrolet Trailblazer,
was occupied by at least seven individuals:
1.
2. 3. 4. 5.
\'anessa E. Harrison - driver~ Gregory Harrison; Kayla Harrison, a minor; Myrna Felicia Williams; Dai-Jah Armani Dyer, a minor;
3
6. 7. (b)
Desteni Dyer, a minor; Kaylin S. Harrison, a minor.
Kaylin S. Harrison, Dai-Jah Armani Dyer and Myrna Felicia Williams Vanessa E.
were critically injured in the Occurrence and died as a result of their injuries.
Harrison, Gregory Harrison, Kayla Harrison and Desteni Dyer received serious personal injuries as a result of the Occurrence. (c) The accident was caused by sudden tread separation of a Continental
Contitrac tire mounted on the right rear of the vehicle. (d) inspected. (e) (f) The Plaintiffs sold and installed the subject tire. The Plaintiffs failed to inspect the subject tire, subsequently installed the The subject tire was defectively designed, manufactured, tested and
tire and failed to warn defects. (g) The Plaintiffs negligently inspected, graded, culled and selected the
subject tire from used tires as fit sales to the general public (Maryland Lawsuits only). 10. The Plaintiffs have submitted the Lawsuits to Ace for defense and coverage under
the Commercial General Liability Policy. A copy of the Policy is attached as Exhibit 5. 11. Ace has declined and refused to provide either a defense or coverage for any of
the Lawsuits. Consequently, the Plaintiffs have retained counsel both in Florida and in Maryland to defend the Lawsuits and have incurred and are incurring legal expenses and litigation costs as a result of Ace's refusal to defend the Lawsuits. 12. The Ace Policy No. G2 17 76 79 8 was issued by Ace to the Plaintiffs for a period
from January 24,2007 to January 24, 2008. The Policy has the following limits of liability:
4
General Aggregate" $2,000,000.00 Product/Completed Operations Aggregate - $2,000,000.00 Medical Expense (anyone person or organization) - $10,000.00 There is no Deductable for the aforegoing coverages. 13. provides: a. We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of "bodily injury" or "property damage" to which this insurance applies. We will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any "suit" seeking those damages. However, we will have no duty to defend the insured against any "suit" seeking damages for "bodily injury" or "property damage" to which this insurance does not apply. Subject to all of its terms, conditions and exclusions, Section I of the Policy
14.
Section IV of the Policy provides:
7.
Separation ofInsureds
Except with respect to the Limits of Insurance, and any rights or duties specifically assigned in this Coverage Part to the first Named Insured, this insurance applies: a. b. As if each Named Insured were the only Named Insured,
and
Separately to each insured against whom claim is made or "suit" is brought.
15.
Section V - Definitions of the Policy defines the term "Products-completed
operations hazard" as follows: a. Includes all "bodily injury" and "property damage" occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of "your product" or "your work". Endorsement LD-] 5760 defines "your product" to include: (1) Any goods or products, other than real property, manufactured, sold, handled, distributed or disposed of by: (a) You.
5
Furthermore, "Your product" includes: (2) "The providing instructions. " 16. of or failure to provide warnings or
In declining and refusing to provide either a defense or coverage for any of the
Lawsuits, Ace has relied on an exclusion to Form C021S3 entitled "Exclusion - Designated Ongoing Operations." follows: The description of "Designated Ongoing Operations" is amended as
"ANY AND ALL OPERATIONS THAT CONSIST OF RETAIL USED TIRED TO
INCLUDE PERSONAL INJURY AND MEDICAL PAYMENTS." 17. The Exclusion Form states: This insurance does not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of the ongoing operations described in the Schedule of this Endorsement regardless of whether such operations are conducted by you or on your behalf or whether the operations are conducted for yourself or others."
COUNT I
For Declaratory Relief that the subject insurance Policy requires Ace to provide a defense to the Plaintiffs for the Lawsuits under Coverage A - Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability. 18. 19. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein. Under the allegations of the Lawsuits, the Exclusion-designation Ongoing
Operations does not apply because the tire alleged1x sold and installed by the Plaintiffs was not in the Plaintiffs' physical possession at the time of the Occurrence, and, therefore, the bodily operations hazard."
injuries alleged in the Lawsuits are covered as a "Products-completed 20.
Furthermore, as will be shown by extrinsic evidence, the Plaintiffs did not sell or
install the subject tire, as the Plaintiffs do not perform any operations that consist of "retail used tires."
6
WHEREFORE,
the Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the subject insurance
Policy does afford them a defense and coverage for the claims and damages sought in the Lawsuits and that Ace has a duty to defend the Lawsuits and/or indemnify the Plaintiffs as a result of any judgment entered against any of them in the Lawsuits. COUNT II Fees and Litigation Expenses
Attorneys' 21. 22.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 20 as if fully set forth herein. Because Ace has refused to defend the Lawsuits, the Plaintiffs have incurred and
continue to incur legal fees and litigation expenses in defending both the Lawsuits in Florida and in Maryland. 23. Ace has breached its duty to defend the Lawsuits, thereby causing the Plaintiffs to
incur the legal fees and litigation expenses mentioned above. WHEREFORE, this suit is brought and the Plaintiffs claim damages in an amount to be
proven at trial to reimburse for the legal fees and litigation expenses incurred in defending the Lawsuits and in prosecuting the action for declaratory judgment.
Respectfully submitted,
Atiorneys for Plaiiitifft
7
Circuit Court for
Cily or County
_ CIVIL - NON-DOMESTIC CASE INFORMATION REPORT
DIRECTIONS: Plaintiff: This Ill/ormatioll Report must be completed and attached to the compiaillt filed witlr Ille Gel* O/COUl.t ulJ/ess your case is exelllptedfi"OlIl the requil'emelJt by lire Cllie/ Judge o/Ille Court a/Appeals pursuallt to Rule 2-111 (a). A copy /nust be incl/lded/or cadI defendant to be served. Defelldant: You mustjile an IlIjol"matioll Repol"t as required by Rule 2-323(11). THIS INFORMATION REPORT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS AN ANSWER OR RESPONSE. CASE NUMBER FORM FILED BV: U PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
0
(Clerk 10 insert)
CASE NAME:
PlaiDtiff
vs.
Defend"",
JURV DEMAND: Yes RELATED CASE PENDING? Special Requirements?
0
BNO
Ves DNa
Anticipated length ofteial: If yes, Case #(s), if known:
hours or ___
days
0 Interpreter
o ADA accommodation
(please attach Fonn CC-DC 41) (Please attach Form CC-DC 49) DAMAGES/RELIEF LABOR A.TORTS Actual Damages DUnder $7,500 D Medical $ D Property $ DWageLoss Judgment B. CONTRACTS $ C. NONMONETARY DDeclnrntory DInjunction DOtber Judgment Damages Bills
NATURE OF ACTION (CHECK ONE BOX) TORTS DMotorTort DPremises DAssault Liability & Ballery Malpractice Death
o Workers' Camp. o Wrongful Discharge
OEEO DOther CONTRACTS Drnsurance DConfessed
oS7 ,500 - S50,OOO
OS50,OOO - SIOO,OOO DOver SIOO,OOO
D Product Liability OProfessional DWrongful
o
Business & Commercial & Slander ArrestlImprisonment Torls Prosecution
OLibel OFalse OToxic DFraud
o Other
DJudicial
REAL PROPERTY Sale Tenant OTHER DCivil D Condemnation
DNuisance
o Under $10,000
D $ I 0,000 - $20,000 $20,0000 DOver
DMalicious DLeadPainl DAslJestos DOther
o Other
DADA
DLandlord
o Environmental
0
Rights
.
OOlhcr ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION Is this case appropriate for referral to an ADR process under Md. Rule 17-101? (Check alllhat A. Mediation Yes DNa c. Senlement Conference Yes No D. Neutral Evaluation B. Arbitration DVes D No DVesDNo
0
i5IY)
TRACK REQUEST Willi the exceptioll 0/ Baltimore COl/lily alld Ballimore City, please fill ill ,he estimated LENGTH THIS CASE WILL THEN BE TRACKED ACCORDINGLY. ~ 1/2 day oftrial or less 3 days of trial time I day oftrial time More Ihan 3 days oflrial lime 2 days of trial time
B
OF TRIAL
PLEASE SEE PAGE TWO OF THIS FORM FOR INSTRUCTIONS PERTAINING TO THE BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND COMPLEX SCIENCE AND/OR MEDICAL CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (ASTAR), AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS IF YOU ARE FILING YOUR COMPLAINT IN BALTIMORE CITY, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, OR BALTIMORE COUNTY. Date CC/DCM 002 (Rev. 2/2010) Signature
Page I ofJ
For nlljllrisdictiolls,
if BlIsilless
Expedited Trial within 7 months
o
alld Techllology rrack desigllatioll tllJder Md. Rille 16-205 is reqllested, attaclt a d"plicate copy of complaitlf alld clteck aile oftlte tracks beloll'.
D
Standard Trial within 18 months of Filing
o EMERGENCY
of Filing RELIEF REQUESTED
_
o Expedited.
Trial within 7 months of Filing
D Standard
- Trial within 18 months of Filing
IF YOU ARE FILING YOUR COMPLAINT IN BALTIMORE CITY, PRINCE COUNTY PLEASE FILL OUT THE APPROPRIATE BOX BELOW.
GEORGE'S
COUNTY, OR BALTIMORE
CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE
CITY (CHECK ONLY ONE)
D Expedited D Standard-Short D Standard D Lead Paint D Asbestos D Protracted Cases
Trial 60 to 120 days from notice. NOIl.jury mailers. Trial 210 days. Trial 360 days. Fill in: Birth Date of youngest plaintiff Events and deadlines set by individual judge. Complex cases designated by the Administrative Judge.
CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S
COUNTY
To assist the Coun in determining the appropriate Track forth is case, check one orthe boxes below. ntis information is!!Q! an admission and may not be used for any purpose otller than Track Assignment.
D Liability D Liability
is conceded. is not conceded, but is not seriously in dispute.
D
Liability is seriously in dispute.
CC/DCM 002 (Rev. 2/2010)
Page 2 of3
CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE
COUNTY
o Expedited days) (Trial Date-90 o Standard days) (Trial Date-240 o(Trial Date-345 days) Extended Standard o(Trial Date-450 days) Complex
Attachment Before ludgment, Declaratoxy ludgment (Simple), Administrative Appeals, District Court Appeals and Jury Trial Prayers, Guardianship, Injunction, Mandamus. Condemnation, Confessed ludgments (Vacated), Contract, Employment Related Cases, Fraud and Misrepresentation, hlternational Tort, Molor Tort, Olher Personal Injury, Workers' Compensation Cases. Asbestos, Lender Liability, Professional Malpractice, Serious Motor Tort or Personal Injury Cases (medical expenses and wage loss of .$100,000, expert and out-of-state witnesses (parties), and llial offive-or more days), Stale Insolvency. Class Actions, Designaled Toxic Tort, Major Construction Contracts, Major Product Liabilities, Other Complex Cases.
CCIDCM 002 (Rev. 2/2010)
Page 300

Published under a Creative Commons License By attribution, non-commercial
AttachmentSize
Emanual et al v. Ace American Insurance Co. Complaint.pdf391.69 KB

Like us on facebook!