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

G-I HOLDINGS, INC. v. CENTURY INDEMNITY 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
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 8 of 28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY, as ) successor to CCI INSURANCE COMPANY, ) as successor to INSURANCE COMPANY OF ) NORTH AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) ) --------------------------------)
G-I HOLDINGS, INC.,
COMPLAINT
Jury Trial Demanded
Plaintiff G-I Holdings, Inc. ("G-I"), by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Complaint against Defendant Century Indemnity Company ("Century"), as successor to CCI Insurance Company, as successor to the Insurance Company of North America ("INA") (collectively "Century"), and alleges:
INTRODUCTION
1. Century is breaching its continuing obligation to pay for G-I's defense of the
"Building Cases," as that term is defined in the 1987 Defense Agreement between GAF and INA, which are claims by building owners for damages allegedly incurred as a result ofthe of the owners' decades old installation of asbestos-containing products manufactured by The Ruberoid Company ("Ruberoid") and GAF Corporation ("GAF"), (collectively, the "GAF Asbestos Containing Products"). Having paid G-I's defense expenses for many years, Century has now
reversed course, and in bad faith, is refusing to pay for G-I's defense of the $500 million Building Case brought by the New York City Housing Authority (the "NYCHA Claim"). 2. Century is required to pay for the defense of Building Cases under the terms of (i)
a series of comprehensive general liability ("CGL") insurance policies Century's predecessor,
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 9 of 28
of 0-1 INA, sold to Ruberoid and OAF, the corporate predecessors ofG-I (the "INA Policies") and (ii) GAF,
a 1987 Defense Agreement between OAF and INA. GAF
3.
2000,0-1 From approximately the mid 1980's through 2000, G-I and its predecessors
successfully defended scores of Building Cases by mounting a vigorous defense Century approved and funded. Only one jury verdict was ever rendered in favor of a property owner in a Building Case, and that verdict was overturned on appeal. 4.
G-1's 0-1's defense effort ground to a virtual halt on January 5, 2001 when it filed for
chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in response to an escalating volume of asbestos personal injury
claims. The stay of the Building Cases which was in effect during the pendency ofG-I's ofO-I's bankruptcy proceeding substantially relieved Century of the obligation to pay G- l' s defense 0-1's expenses. 0-1's bankruptcy proceeding ended in late 2009 under a Plan of Reorganization that G- l' s
channeled all asbestos personal injury claims asserted against 0-1 into an asbestos settlement G-I trust. Unlike the asbestos personal injury claims, however, 0-1 must now defend the timely filed G-I Building Cases. 5.
Under its Plan of Reorganization, G-I assumed the INA Policies and 1987 0-1
Defense Agreement. Nevertheless, Century has refused to pay expenses incurred by 0-1 for the G-I defense of one of the Building Cases, the NYCHA Claim. Century has asserted baseless ofthe of thousands objections to reimbursing hundred ofthousands of dollars in defense expenses and created
inordinate delays in processing and paying what minimal defense expenses it has actually paid.
It has gone so far as to challenge G-1's status as a beneficiary to the 1987 Defense Agreement, 0-1's despite the fact that the Bankruptcy Court and District Court for the District of New Jersey have
OAF, both recognized that 0-1 is the successor in interest to GAF, a signatory to the 1987 Defense G-I
2
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 10 of 28
Agreement. Moreover, for years Century itself acknowledged by its conduct that the 1987
Defense Agreement applies to G- 1. G-1. 6. Century has further objected to reimbursing legal bills for the defense of the $500
million NYCHA Claim claiming that defense counsel's hourly rates are not reasonable.
However, Century has not reimbursed even that amount it deems "reasonable" - in fact it has not
paid a penny of the NYCHA defense expenses.
7.
Century's refusal to honor its obligations under the INA Policies and the 1987
Defense Agreement is in bad faith. Given Century's prior acknowledgment of its obligation to pay G-I's defense expenses for Building Cases, there is no good faith basis for its refusal to pay
justify the NYCHA defense expenses. Its assertion of patently false excuses in an attempt to justifY its
non-payment underscores that it has no good faith basis for its conduct. 8.
G-I thus seeks damages for Century's breaches of the INA Policies and the 1987
Defense Agreement and for its unjustifiable failure to defend G-I against the NYCHA Claim, as well as declaratory relief that Century is obligated to defend and indemnify G-I against the NYCHA Claim. Finally, G-I also seeks to recover all damages suffered by G-I as a result of Century's bad faith and breaches of fiduciary duty in its failures to honor its obligations under
the INA Policies.
PARTIES
9.
PlaintiffG-I is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1361 Plaintiff G-I
Alps Road, Wayne, New Jersey, 07470. G-I is the successor to GAF and Ruberoid, among other companies. Ruberoid and GAF once manufactured asbestos containing building products. All
but GAF's manufacture of vinyl asbestos floor tile ("VAT") ceased in the 1970's; GAF's
manufacture of V AT ceased in or about 1981. The manufacture of those products resulted in asbestos liabilities. When G-I was created through a series of internal corporate mergers in 3
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 11 of 28
2000, it inherited those liabilities as well as the rights to the insurance coverage that had been written for Ruberoid and GAF. 10. Defendant Century is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of
business at 436 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19106. Century is the successor to CCI Insurance Company, which is the successor to INA.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Century because Century is incorporated
under the laws of, and carries on a continuous and systematic part of its general business within, Pennsylvania. 12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a) because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs, and the action is between citizens of different states; this Court also has subject matter jurisdiction under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq. 13. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1391(a)(1), because Century resides in this judicial district.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS The Building Cases
14. In the 1980's GAF began to be named in numerous Building Cases throughout the
country. In these cases, the plaintiffs, usually governmental entities, school districts, or other building owners, allege damage, destruction, loss of tangible property, and/or diminution in property value resulting from the purported installation of GAF Asbestos Containing Products in the plaintiffs' buildings.
4
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 12 of 28
15.
The plaintiffs in the Building Cases generally seek, in addition to punitive
damages, compensatory damages for, among other things, the costs of inspecting, containing, removing and/or replacing GAF Asbestos Containing Products. The Building Cases subjected GAF (and, as a result, G-I),to a potential liability for hundreds of millions of dollars in alleged damages. Accordingly, GAF vigorously defended itself. Only one plaintiffs verdict involving GAF Asbestos Containing Products has ever been rendered in a Building Case, and that verdict did not survive appeal. 16. Through a series of internal corporate mergers involving GAF that occurred in
2000, G-I was created. As a result ofthose mergers, G-I inherited both the asbestos liabilities of GAF as well as any insurance coverage for such liabilities.
The Policies
17.
From 1953 though 1975, INA issued to Ruberoid and GAF, for substantial
premiums, the INA Policies in the aggregate amount of$9.5 million which provide coverage for Building Cases. Pursuant to the terms of the INA Policies, defense expenses are not charged against the indemnity limits. Attached as Exhibit A is a chart detailing the INA Policies. 18. Each of the INA Policies contains the following Insurance Agreement with regard
to property damage liability: INA will pay on behalf ofthe insured all sums which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of personal injury or property damage to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence and arising out of (1) the ownership, maintenance or use, including loading and unloading of any automobile, (2) all other operations of the Insured, and INA shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the Insured seeking damages on account of such personal injury or property damage, even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent, and may make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient, but INA shall not be obligated to pay any claim or judgment or defend any suit
5
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 13 of 28
after the applicable limit onNA's liability has been exhausted by ofINA's the payment of judgments or settlements. 19. The INA Policies define "Property Damage" to mean "injury to or destruction of
tangible property," which is the very nature of the Building Cases. 20. The INA Policies define "Occurrence" with respect to property damage, as "an
accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in property damage .... " 21. INA Thus, under the IN A Policies, Century agreed to insure GAF against liabilities for
property damage resulting from the "injurious exposure" to GAF's products. 22. Pursuant to the INA Policies' terms, Century accepted a duty to fully defend G-I
in cases in which the damage, destruction, or loss alleged therein is alleged to have occurred within the policy periods, no matter how groundless, false, or fraudulent the underlying allegations may be. 23. Century has an obligation under the INA Policies to pay all reasonable attorneys'
fees and expenses as they are incurred by G-I as a result of the Building Cases until "the applicable limit of INA's liability has been exhausted by the payment of judgments or settlements." There is no limit on Century's obligation to pay defense costs contemporaneously. Thus, under the INA Policies, Century has an absolute obligation to pay all reasonable costs of defense until the $9.5 million in coverage has been exhausted by judgments or settlements. Century has acknowledged that the $9.5 million in coverage has not been exhausted.
The 1987 Defense Agreement to Indemnify and Defend
24.
In the early to mid-1980s, GAF tendered the Building Cases to Century. Despite
the fact that the INA Policies clearly provide that Century must provide a defense for such Building Claims, Century disputed its defense obligation. As a result, in or about 1985, GAF 6
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 14 of 28
was forced to institute an action seeking a declaratory judgment that Century must provide a defense under its insurance policies for the Building Cases. 25. In 1987, after GAF filed its coverage action, GAF and its insurance companies
entered into the 1987 Defense Agreement, whereby GAF agreed to stay then pending insurance coverage litigation, provided Century and any other insurance companies that agreed to do so "defend[ed] GAF in all pending and future Building Cases", subject to any reservation of rights that has been, or will be, communicated to GAF. 26. Pursuant to the 1987 Defense Agreement, Century promised that "all statements
for attorneys' fees and other defense expenses may be submitted to [Century], and that [Century would] assume the responsibility for directly paying all such properly submitted and reasonable statements, and for obtaining reimbursement from any other defending carriers." 27. The INA Policies and the 1987 Defense Agreement, provide two independent
bases on which Century is required to provide GAF with an absolute defense in the Building Cases.
Century's Payment of the Defense Prior to Bankruptcy
28.
From 1987 to 2001, GAF, and then G-I, coordinated a vigorous defense of scores
of Building Cases, including engaging and training counsel and implementing defense and trial strategies. GAF mounted this defense with Century's knowledge and approval ofthe associated defense expenses. Century paid the defense counsel and expert witness fees. 29. As a result of its efforts, G-I and its predecessors successfully defended the
Building Cases. Only two cases proceeded to trial and only one of those resulted in a verdict in favor of an underlying plaintiff. That verdict was overturned on appeal. 30. On January 5, 2001, G-I voluntarily entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
7
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 15 of 28
31.
Although the Building Cases were not actively prosecuted during the pendency of
the G-I bankruptcy, nevertheless, some defense expenses continued to be incurred by 0-1. 0-1 G- 1. Century paid those expenses. Century Refuses to Honor its Obligations 32.
In late 2008, proofs of claim were filed in the 0-1 bankruptcy with respect to the G-I
G-I Building Cases. As a result of these new filings, 0-1 again was forced to defend these cases and began to incur significant costs. Despite the fact that Century agreed to pay the defense of such
Building Cases as they were incurred, Century now refuses to honor its obligations under the O-I's INA Policies and the 1987 Defense Agreement and contemporaneously pay G-I's defense
expenses with respect to the most significant of those Building Cases.
Century Refuses to Honor its Obligation to Pay for the Defense of the NYCHA Claim 33. In October 2008, the New York City Housing Authority ("NYCHA") filed a
G-I's proof of claim against O-I's bankruptcy estate (the "NYCHA Claim"). Like all of the prior Building Cases for which Century provided a defense and indemnification, the NYCHA Claim alleged that GAF Asbestos Containing Products - primarily VAT - were installed in NYCHA OAF buildings and those products, which had been in place for decades, had damaged NYCHA's buildings and endangered its residents. 34. The NYCHA Claim alleges that NYCHA has expended and will continue to
expend large sums to inspect its buildings, locate asbestos-containing products and remove and
OAF replace GAF Asbestos Containing Products. The NYCHA Claim seeks damages in the amount
of $500,000,000. G-I advised Century of the NYCHA Claim in January 2009, although Century, 0-1
which had filed its own proof of claim in the 0-1 bankruptcy, was, on information and belief, G-I aware of the NYCHA claim before then.
8
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 16 of 28
35.
G-I initially assigned the firm of Flemming Zulack & Williamson ("Flemming"),
its long time defense counsel for New York Building Cases, to research certain issues pertaining to the NYCHA Claim. It thereafter assigned Dewey LeBoeuf ("Dewey"), G-I's bankruptcy counsel and Andrew Rossman, who was litigating other claims in the G-I bankruptcy proceeding, to defend the NYCHA Claim. 36. G-I's defense team filed an objection to the NYCHA proof of claim in December
2008, seeking disallowance of the NYCHA Claim. The parties engaged in extensive briefing through July 2009 culminating in a hearing on July 22, 2009. G-I's objection was granted in part and denied in part by an Opinion of the bankruptcy court dated December 14, 2010, and an Order dated December 22,2010 implementing that Opinion. G-I incurred, paid, and submitted 22, 2010 to Century for reimbursement more than $360,000 in legal fees in connection with its partially successful efforts to disallow the NYCHA Claim. Payment of the vast majority of those legal ofthe fees was subject to approval of the bankruptcy court, which approval was secured before payment was made. 37. In January 2009, G-I contacted Century and requested that it pay the legal
expenses incurred by G-I in objecting to the NYCHA Claim. Notwithstanding the resolution of the coverage dispute culminating in the 1987 Defense Agreement, and Century's subsequent course of conduct in paying such legal expenses, by letter dated April 10, 2009, Century advised G-I that: "We are reviewing the 1987 [Defense] Agreement, as well as the NYCHA Proof of Claim, to determine whether Century has any obligation to provide a defense with respect to the NYCHA Proof of Claim under the 1987 Agreement. We are also reviewing and considering whether Century has a duty to defend under the [INA Policies] ... " Although almost two years
9
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 17 of 28
have passed since the date ofthat letter, Century has never advised G-I that it disputes that it has of that an obligation to defend the NYCHA Claim. 38. In July and August 2009, G-I submitted to Century detailed lists of defense
expenses it incurred in connection with the defense of the NYCHA Claim and requested reimbursement. 39. By letter dated August 20,2009, Century acknowledged receipt ofG-1's
reimbursement requests. Century indicated that review of the expenses was underway and stated a series of potential objections to payment ofG-1's defense expenses. 40. When G-I had not received any payment by November, G-I wrote to Century on
November 4,2009 addressing Century's meritless concerns and demanding reimbursement of its defense expenses. 41. On December 4,2009, Century advised G-I that it was still investigating and
considering G- l' s reimbursement request. However, Century claimed there was "a significant G-1's issue" as to whether G-I holds any rights under the 1987 Defense Agreement; Century objected to paying "bankruptcy rates" despite the fact that the NYCHA claim was being litigated in G-I's bankruptcy court; and Century challenged G-1' s use of more than one law firm to defend the $500 million NYCHA Claim, claiming it was "inconsequential" that the bankruptcy court had approved payment of defense counsels' fees. 42. Although it purported to challenge G-1's status as a beneficiary of the 1987
Defense Agreement, Century had long been aware of the corporate reorganization that formed GI and had never once questioned G-1's status as the successor to GAF. Furthermore, Century continued to pay expenses associated with the defense of Building Cases even after the corporate reorganization took place in 2000.
10
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 18 of 28
43.
Additionally, Century had for many years accepted and approved G-I's use of G-1's
multiple law firms to defend the Building Cases. Century had also for many years paid G-1's G-I's defense costs associated with the Building Cases as the costs were incurred. 44. By letter dated December 31, 2009, G-I again responded to Century's concerns,
unilaterally reduced the amount of its reimbursement request and again demanded payment of its
NYCHA defense expenses. 45. As ofthe date of this complaint, more than eighteen months has elapsed since G-I of the ofthis
requested reimbursement of its NYCHA defense expenses and Century still has not paid a penny
to G-I on account of such defense expenses.
46. Because the bankruptcy court declined to disallow certain aspects of the NYCHA
Claim, G-I will therefore continue to incur substantial defense costs as a result of the NYCHA
Claim for which Century has refused to honor its obligations to G-I.
G-I Complies With All Terms And Conditions Of The INA Policies And The 1987 Defense Agreement
47.
G-I has fulfilled all of its duties and conditions under each of the INA Policies
with respect to the NYCHA Claim.
48. G-I has also fulfilled all of its duties and conditions under the 1987 Defense
Agreement with respect to the Building Cases generally, and the NYCHA Claim in particular. 49. G-I and/or GAF timely notified Century ofthe NYCHA Claim, and at all times of the
has cooperated with Century's reasonable requests related to those lawsuits. 50. G-I is entitled to all the rights and benefits provided by the INA Policies, and the
1987 Defense Agreement. 51. As a result of Century's failure to pay the costs of the NYCHA Claim, G-I has
incurred substantial legal fees and costs in defending the NYCHA Claim. G-I anticipates that in
11
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 19 of 28
the future it will continue to incur substantial legal fees and costs in defending against the NYCHA Claim.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT OF THE INA POLICIES [Duty to Defend]
52. 53. G-I incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint by reference. Century is fully liable for expenditures made, or required to be made in the future,
by G-I to defend itself against the NYCHA Claim. 54. Century has breached, and will continue to breach, the provisions ofthe INA of the
Policies by failing and refusing to defend or pay all fees or costs attributable to defending against the NYCHA Claim. 55. As a direct and proximate result of Century's breach ofthe INA Policies, G-I has
been forced to expend its own monies to defend itself against the NYCHA Claim. 56. As a direct and proximate result of Century's breaches of the INA Policies, G-I ofthe
has sustained damages including, but not limited to, the sums spent to investigate and defend against the NYCHA Claim.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT - 1987 Defense Agreement [Duty to Defend]
57. 58. G-I incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint by reference. Under the 1987 Defense Agreement, Century is fully liable for expenditures
made, or required to be made, by G-I to defend itself against the NYCHA Claim. 59. Century breached the provisions of the 1987 Defense Agreement by failing and/or
refusing to defend or pay any fees or costs attributable to defending against the NYCHA Claim. 60. As a result, G-I has been forced to expend its own monies to defend itself against
the NYCHA Claim. 12
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 20 of 28
61.
As a direct and proximate result of Century's breaches of the 1987 Defense
Agreement, Century has deprived G-I of the benefits of 1987 Defense Agreement. 62. As a direct and proximate result of Century's breaches of the 1987 Defense
Agreement, G-I has sustained damages including, but not limited to, the sums spent to investigate and defend against the NYCHA Claim.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Bad Faith - Failure To Defend
63. 64. G-I incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint by reference. Century's actions constitute bad faith within the meaning of 42 Pa.
c.s. § 8371 in
that, inter alia, Century's refusal to pay under the INA Policies for the fees it has incurred in connection with the NYCHA Claim is, and has been known by Century to be, unreasonable, frivolous, in derogation of its fiduciary duty, and unfounded. Century's actions thus constitute bad faith. 65. G-I. 66. Century's conduct was outrageous, intentional, malicious, willful and in blatant Century's actions have caused, and will continue to cause, substantial damage to
disregard of G-I' s rights. 67. As a result of said conduct, Century is liable to G-I for compensatory and punitive
damages, interest, attorneys fees and costs.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Bad Faith - Failure To Process Claim
68. 69. G-I incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint by reference. Century's actions constitute bad faith within the meaning of 42 Pa. C.S. § 8371 in
that, inter alia, Century's delay in processing, and failure to process, G-I's claim for payment of defense expenses in connection with the NYCHA Claim is, and has been known by Century to
13
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 21 of 28
be, unreasonable, frivolous, in derogation of its fiduciary duty, and unfounded. Century's actions thus constitute bad faith. 70.
G-I.
Century's actions have caused, and will continue to cause, substantial damage to
71.
Century's conduct was outrageous, intentional, malicious, willful and in blatant
disregard of G-I' s rights. 72. As a result of said conduct, Century is liable to G-I for compensatory and punitive
damages, interest, attorneys fees and costs.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Fiduciary Duty
73. 74.
G-I incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint by reference. Under the terms of the INA Policies, Century is charged with the duty to defend
G-I against the NYCHA Claim. 75. As a result, Century held a position of special trust and fiduciary responsibility to
G-I with respect to the defense ofthe NYCHA Claim, induding the responsibility to deal with G-I in good faith. 76. Century breached those duties when it placed its interests above G-I's by refusing
to pay G-I's defense costs associated with the NYCHA Claim. 77. As a direct and proximate result of Century's breach of its fiduciary duties, G-I
has suffered damages. 78.
G-I.
Century's actions have caused, and will continue to cause, substantial damage to
79.
Century's conduct was outrageous, intentional, malicious, willful and in blatant
disregard ofG-I's rights. 14
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 22 of 28
80.
As a result of said conduct, Century is liable to G-I for punitive damages, as well
as compensatory damages.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment - Duty To Defend
81. 82.
G-I incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint by reference. The INA Policies provide G-I with insurance coverage for liability arising from
property damage, including damages arising out of the Building Claims. 83. ofthe Under the terms of the INA Policies, Century has a duty to defend G-I in the
Building Cases and must pay G-I' s defense costs as they are incurred. G-I's 84. Century has refused, or threatened to refuse, to accept its legal obligations to
defend G-I against the NYCHA Claim. 85. As a result of the foregoing, an actual andjusticable controversy presently exists
between G-I on the one hand, and Century on the other hand, with respect to Century's duties and obligations to defend G-I against the NYCHA Claim.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment - Duty To Defend Under The 1987 Defense Agreement
86. 87.
G-I incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint by reference. The 1987 Defense Agreement provides that Century will defend G-I "in all
pending and future Building Cases." 88. Century has refused, or threatened to refuse, to accept its legal obligations to
defend against the NYCHA Claim. 89. andjusticable As a result of the foregoing, an actual and justicable controversy presently exists
between G-I on the one hand, and Century on the other hand, with respect to Century's duties and obligations to defend G-I under the 1987 Defense Agreement.
15
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 23 of 28
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment - Duty to Indemnify
90. 91.
G-I incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs ofthis Complaint by reference. of this
The INA Policies provide G-I with insurance coverage for liability arising from
property damage, including damages arising out of the Building Cases. including
92.
of the Under the terms ofthe INA Policies, Century has a duty to indemnify G-I in the
Building Cases. 93. Century has threatened to refuse to accept its legal obligations to indemnify G-I
on various grounds by reserving its rights to deny coverage for the NYCHA Claim. 94. As a result of the foregoing, an actual andjusticable controversy presently exists and justicable
between G-I on the one hand, and Century on the other hand, with respect to Century's duties and obligations to indemnify G-I for the NYCHA Claim.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter a judgment:
(1)
As to the First and Second Causes of Action, awarding G-I an amount to
be determined at trial, including but not limited to the fees G-I has incurred or will incur in connection with the NYCHA Claim; (2) As to the Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action, awarding G-I
compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, as well as interest, punitive damages in favor of G-I and/or actual money damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
16
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 24 of 28
(3)
As to the Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action, awarding G-I a declaration
adjudging, decreeing and declaring that Century must defend G-I in the NYCHA Claim and pay G-I's defense costs as they are incurred;
(4)
As to the Eighth Cause of Action, awarding G-I a declaration adjudging,
decreeing and declaring that Century must indemnify G-I for the NYCHA Claim;
(5)
As to all Causes of Action, awarding G-I the attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses it has incurred in prosecuting this action;
(6)
As to all Causes of Action, awarding G-I pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest as provided by law; and
(7)
As to all Causes of Action, granting such other and further relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Demand is hereby made for a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
Dated: January 24,2011
cL
LeeM. Epste~.(PABarNo.: 61762) Linda J. Karpel, Esq. (PA Bar No.: 62009) FRIED & EPSTEIN LLP Constitution Place 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 625-0123 Fax: (215) 625-0764
?(~' /
17
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 25 of 28
KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP Robin L. Cohen, Esq. 1633 Broadway New York, New York 10019 Tel: (212) 506-1700 Attorneys/or PlaintiffG-I Holdings, Inc.
18
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 26 of 28
EXHIBIT
A
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 27 of 28
EXHIBIT "A"
RPL280 RPL299 RPL 520 RPL 543 RPL 562 RPL 579 RPL 594 CGL 175249 CGL 19 18 18 CGL 201486 CGL 2117 48 CGL 232126 LAB 16372 LAB 16391 LAB 21620 LAB 21620 LAB 21620 SRL 2231 SRL 2231 SRL2231
12/3111953 12/3111954 12/3111955 12/3111956
12/3111954 12/3111955 12/3111956 111/1958
11111958 1/1/1958 111/1959 11111959 11111960 1/111961 11111961 111/1962 11111962 11111963 11111964
1/111965
11111959 11111960 1/111960
1/1/1961 111/1961
11111962 111/1962
1/111963
11111964
1/111965 11111965
11111966 11111967
512611967 5/26/1967 5/111968
11111966 11111967 1/1/1967
5/111967
5/1/1968 5/111968
5/111969 5/111970 5/111971 5/111972
51111969 5/1/1969
5/111970
51111971 5/1/1971 5/1/1972 5/111972
5/111973
Case 2:11-cv-00459-RK Document 1
Filed 01/24/11 Page 28 of 28
SRL 2231
SRL 2231
5/1/1973 5/1/1974 51111974
5/1/1974 5/111974 5/1/1975

Published under a Creative Commons License By attribution, non-commercial
AttachmentSize
G-I Holdings v Century Indemnity Complaint.pdf1.37 MB

Like us on facebook!