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

IMG WORLDWIDE, INC. et al v. WESTCHESTER FIRE 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
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 1 of 23. PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION IMG Worldwide, Inc. 1360 East 9th Street Suite 100 Cleveland, Ohio 44114, and IMG Academies, LLP 5500 34th Street West Bradenton, Florida 34210, Plaintiffs, v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company 436 Walnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CIVIL ACTION NO. ___________ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT IMG Worldwide, Inc. (“IMG”) and IMG Academies, LLP (“IMGA”) file this Complaint against Westchester Fire Insurance Company (“Westchester”), alleging as follows: 1. This Complaint arises out of Westchester’s failure to honor its
contractual duty to defend and indemnify IMG and IMGA under umbrella/excess insurance policies Westchester issued to IMG and IMGA, in connection with
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 2 of 23. PageID #: 2
litigation in the Southern District of Florida titled Walter Gastaldi, et al. v. Sunvest Resort Communities, LC, et. al., Case No. 0:08-cv-62076-CMA (“Gastaldi” or the “Gastaldi Lawsuit”). Westchester has failed to provide any coverage to IMG and IMGA under the policies, despite the exhaustion of the primary carrier’s underlying limits. IMG and IMGA also seek damages for Westchester’s bad faith denial of insurance coverage, and a declaration regarding Westchester’s obligations under the policies. The Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue 2. IMG is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in
Cleveland, Ohio. IMG is a sports, entertainment and media company whose business includes client representation of golf, tennis and other athletes. 3. IMGA is a Florida limited liability partnership with its principal place
of business in Bradenton, Florida. IMGA is a sports training and educational company that offers full and part-time educational programs and sports instruction to student, amateur, and professional athletes. IMGA’s sole partner is IMG. 4. Defendant Westchester is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As described below, Westchester issued several umbrella liability insurance policies to IMG and its subsidiaries, including IMGA.
2
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 3 of 23. PageID #: 3
5.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there
is complete diversity of citizenship between IMG, IMGA and Westchester, which are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 6. Westchester is subject to personal jurisdiction because it regularly
transacts business in Ohio, is an admitted insurer in Ohio, and delivered the insurance policies at issue in Ohio. 7. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The Gastaldi Lawsuit 8. On November 25, 2008, approximately 270 plaintiffs filed a
Complaint (the “Original Complaint”) in the case styled Walter Gastaldi, et al. v. Sunvest Communities USA, LLC, et. al., Case No. 08058100, in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida. The Gastaldi Original Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Original Complaint named IMGA as a defendant, as well as real estate developers Sunvest Communities USA, LLC and E.W. Sunvest Development LLC (the “Sunvest Defendants”). On December 26, 2008, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where it was assigned Case No. 0:08-cv-62076-CMA.
3
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 4 of 23. PageID #: 4
9.
The Gastaldi plaintiffs alleged, among other things, they were misled
by IMGA and the Sunvest Defendants into purchasing approximately 200 apartment units that would be, but never were, converted into luxury condominiums at an IMG soccer academy to be located in Orlando, Florida. Rather than receiving ownership privileges in an exclusive resort, plaintiffs alleged that they were left with “un-refurbished residential units in a low-end abandoned moldy bug and rodent infested apartment complex” with “[n]o conversion, no resort, no world-class amenities, and no IMGA sports complex or training facility.” First Amended Complaint, ¶ 246. The Gastaldi plaintiffs sought over $300 million in damages. 10. The Gastaldi Lawsuit was a complex, heavily-contested suit involving
substantial discovery, including scores of depositions and numerous motions and appearances before the Court. Because the Sunvest Defendants claimed to be insolvent, they did not actively defend the suit. 11. In the Original Complaint, the Gastaldi plaintiffs asserted three counts
under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) (Counts I- III), Fraudulent Inducement (Count IV), and Conversion and Civil Theft (Count V). On April 24, 2009, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”) similar to the Gastaldi Original Complaint, naming the 4
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 5 of 23. PageID #: 5
same parties. Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of the First Amended Complaint. Because of the numerous plaintiffs involved in the Gastaldi Lawsuit, the Court ordered that the case be bifurcated into different trials at which different plaintiff “trial groups” would present their claims. On November 23, 2009, the Gastaldi plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (First Trial Group) (the “Second Amended Complaint (First Trial Group)”), removing Counts IV and V for fraud and conversion/civil theft. Attached as Exhibit C is a copy of the Second Amended Complaint (First Trial Group). 12. On February 3, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part
IMGA’s motion for summary judgment, allowing certain claims against IMGA to proceed to trial. Consistent with the scheduling order, the first trial group consisting of 33 plaintiffs was scheduled to go to trial on March 15, 2010. On March 4, 2010, the Court entered rulings on IMGA’s motions in limine related to the Gastaldi plaintiffs’ expert witness testimony, which ultimately led to a continuance of the trial of the first trial group of Gastaldi plaintiffs. 13. On May 6, 2010, the Gastaldi plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint (Second Trial Group) (the “Second Amended Complaint (Second Trial Group)”), containing essentially the same allegations, but adding IMG as a defendant. Attached as Exhibit D is a copy of the Second Amended Complaint 5
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 6 of 23. PageID #: 6
(Second Trial Group). In May, 2010, IMG, IMGA and the Gastaldi plaintiffs settled the Gastaldi Lawsuit, including all claims that were or could have been brought in the case. The settlement included a $5 million payment by IMG and IMGA to the Gastaldi plaintiffs. During the course of the Gastaldi Lawsuit, IMG and IMGA incurred millions of dollars in defense costs, including expert costs. IMG’s Primary Carrier, Great Divide, Settles IMG and IMGA’s Claims Under Its Policies 14. As noted above, Westchester provided several umbrella liability
policies to IMG and its subsidiaries. These umbrella liability policies are excess of primary commercial general liability coverage provided to IMG and its subsidiaries by Great Divide Insurance Company (“Great Divide”). 15. In particular, Great Divide issued to IMG and its subsidiaries
Commercial General Liability Policy No. 1007022-10, for the policy period August 10, 2005 to August 10, 2006 (the “2005-06 Great Divide Policy”); Commercial General Liability Policy No. 1007022-11, for the policy period August 10, 2006 to August 10, 2007 (the “2006-07 Great Divide Policy”); Commercial General Liability Policy No. 1007022-12, for the policy period August 10, 2007 to August 10, 2008 (the “2007-08 Great Divide Policy”); and Commercial General Liability Policy No. 1007022-13, for the policy period August 10, 2008 to August 10, 2009 (the “2008-09 Great Divide Policy”) 6
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 7 of 23. PageID #: 7
(collectively, the “Great Divide Policies”). The Great Divide Policies are substantially similar in their terms. A copy of the 2005-06 Great Divide Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 16. The Great Divide Policies provide different levels of coverage limits
to IMG and its subsidiaries, depending on the type of covered risk. For example, under Coverage A, which includes coverage for “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence,” the Great Divide Policies each have a $1 million sub-limit of coverage (not including defense costs) per “Occurrence.” In addition, like the Westchester umbrella policies, the Great Divide Policies contain language imposing on Great Divide a duty to defend a “suit” seeking covered damages. 17. After IMGA tendered the Gastaldi Lawsuit to Great Divide under the
Great Divide Policies, Great Divide denied coverage, and continued to adhere to that position throughout the entirety of the Gastaldi Lawsuit, until after the Gastaldi Lawsuit settled. 18. On September 23, 2010, IMG, IMGA and Great Divide reached a
Settlement and Release Agreement concerning IMG and IMGA’s claims for coverage under the Great Divide Policies. The settlement with Great Divide exhausted the 2005-06 Great Divide Policy’s $1 million “Property Damage” sub-
7
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 8 of 23. PageID #: 8
limit, and there is no further available or collectible insurance to IMG or IMGA under the Great Divide Policies. The Westchester Insurance Policies 19. Westchester issued to IMG and its subsidiaries Commercial Umbrella
Liability Policy No. CUW788395001, for the policy period August 10, 2005 to August 10, 2006 (the “2005-06 Westchester Policy”); Commercial Umbrella Liability Policy No. G22035459 001, for the policy period August 10, 2006 to August 10, 2007 (the “2006-07 Westchester Policy”); Commercial Umbrella Liability Policy No. G22035459 002, for the policy period August 10, 2007 to August 10, 2008 (the “2007-08 Westchester Policy”); and Commercial Umbrella Liability Policy No. G22035459 003, for the policy period August 10, 2008 to August 10, 2009 (the “2008-09 Westchester Policy”) (collectively, the “Westchester Policies”). The Westchester policies are substantially similar in their terms, but the 2007-08 Westchester Policy changed slightly. Thus, the 2005-06 and 2006-07 Westchester policies are nearly identical to one another; and the 2007-08 and 2008-09 Westchester Policies are nearly identical to one another. A copy of the 2005-06 Westchester Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit F, and a copy of the 2007-08 Westchester Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
8
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 9 of 23. PageID #: 9
20.
The Westchester Policies are umbrella insurance policies that in
certain circumstances provide primary coverage, but in other circumstances provide coverage that is excess of the Great Divide Policies. For each of the above policy years, the Westchester Policies provide $25 million in insurance limits, exclusive of defense costs. 21. IMG is the named insured under the Westchester Policies. By virtue
of the definitions contained in the Westchester Policies, IMGA also is a “Named Insured.” 22. “Insuring Agreement I Coverage” in the 2005-06 and 2006-07
Westchester Policies provides as follows: I. Coverage (1) We will pay on behalf of the “Insured” those sums in excess of the “Retained Limit” which the “Insured,” by reason of liability imposed by law, . . .,” shall become legally obligated to pay as damages for: (a) “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage” occurring during the policy period stated in Item 2 of the Declarations (“Policy Period”) and caused by an “Occurrence”; 2005-06 Westchester Policy (Ex. F), Amendatory Endorsement M03 (3/94). 23. “Retained Limit” is defined in relevant part as follows:
(1) with respect to any “Occurrence” that is covered by “Underlying Insurance” [the Great Divide Policies] or any other insurance, the total of the 9
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 10 of 23. PageID #: 10
applicable limits of the “Underlying Insurance” plus the applicable limits of any other insurance; or (2) with respect to any “Occurrence” that is not covered by “Underlying Insurance” or any other insurance, the amount of the Self-Insured Retention [$10,000] stated in Item 4(e) of the Declarations (the “Self-Insured Retention”). 2005-06 Westchester Policy (Ex. F), Section IV Definitions, ¶ K. The 2007-08 and 2008-09 Westchester Policies contain different language, but the language has the same effect as that set forth above. 24. The Westchester Policies define “Property Damage” as: (1) Physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property (all such loss of use shall be deemed to occur at the time of the physical injury that caused it); or Loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured (all such loss being deemed to occur at the time of the “Occurrence” that caused it).
(2)
2005-06 Westchester Policy (Ex. F), Section IV Definitions, ¶ J. The 2007-08 and 2008-09 Westchester Policies have a nearly identical definition of “Property Damage.” 25. As applied to “Property Damage,” the 2005-06 and 2006-07
Westchester Policy defines “Occurrence” as: (1) An accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions, that results in “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage” that is not expected or not intended by the “Insured.” 10
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 11 of 23. PageID #: 11
All damages that arise from continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions are considered to arise from one “Occurrence.” 2005-06 Westchester Policy (Ex. F), Section IV Definitions, ¶ G. The 2007-08 and 2008-09 Westchester Policies define “Occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” 2007-08 Westchester Policy (Ex. G), Section V Definitions, ¶ 13. 26. The “Underlying Insurance” identified in each Westchester Policy is
the Great Divide Policy applicable to the same policy year. As described above, each of the Great Divide Policies contains a $1 million, per “Occurrence” sub-limit for “Property Damage.” Thus, the Westchester Policies are structured to provide $25 million in coverage for settlements and judgments excess of the $1 million Great Divide sub-limit for such loss. Where the Great Divide policies provide no coverage, each Westchester Policy applies excess of the $10,000 “Self-insured Retention” identified therein. Thus, after application of the $1 million “Property Damage” sub-limit (i.e., the “Retained Limit”), these provisions obligated Westchester to pay the remaining $4 million of the $5 million Gastaldi settlement. 27. The Westchester Policies also impose upon Westchester a duty to
defend IMG and IMGA for any suit seeking damages covered by the policies. The 2005-06 and 2006-07 Westchester Policies provide as follows: 11
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 12 of 23. PageID #: 12
(1)
We shall have the right and duty to defend any “Claim” or “Suit” seeking damages covered by the terms and conditions of this policy when: (a) the applicable limits of insurance of the underlying insurance policies set forth in Schedule A and to be maintained by you in accordance with Condition M of this policy (the “Underlying Insurance”), plus the applicable limits of other insurance have been exhausted by payments; or (b) Damages are sought for “Bodily Injury,” “Property Damage,” “Personal Injury,” or “Advertising Injury” which are not covered by “Underlying Insurance” or other insurance. . . .
(4) We will not be obligated to investigate, negotiate, settle or defend any “Claim,” “Suit” or trial brought against, or applicable to, any “Insured” when: (a) insurance is available to or collectible by the “Insured” under any “Underlying Insurance” or other insurance; (b) the “Underlying Insurance” is not available or collectible because of the bankruptcy, insolvency or inability or failure to comply with any of its policy obligations of the underlying insurer(s) providing such “Underlying Insurance”; or (c) the “Underlying Insurance” is not available or collectible because you did not maintain or meet the requirements of such insurance as warranted by, or you otherwise violated the provisions of, Condition M of this policy. 2005-06 Westchester Policy (Ex. F), Section II Defense Settlement, ¶¶ (1) and (4).
12
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 13 of 23. PageID #: 13
28.
Condition M of the 2005-06 and 2006-07 Westchester Policies
provide as follows (sub-paragraph (3) appears in Endorsement M03 (3/94)): M. Maintenance of Underlying Insurance. You agree: (1) that the “Underlying Insurance” shall remain in force during the “Policy Period”; (2) that the terms, conditions and endorsements of the “Underlying Insurance” will not materially change; and (3) That the limits of liability as warranted by the “Underlying Insurance” will not change, except for reduction or exhaustion in the aggregate or occurrence limits due to payments for: (a) “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage” occurring during the “Policy Period” and caused by an “Occurrence”; . . . If you do not meet these requirements, this insurance shall apply as if the “Underlying Insurance” were available and collectible.” 2005-06 Westchester Policy (Ex. F), Condition M and Amendatory Endorsement M03 (3/94). 29. The 2007-08 and 2008-09 Westchester Policies also contain “duty to
defend” provisions, as follows: We will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any "suit" seeking damages for such "bodily injury" or "property damage" when the "underlying insurance” does not provide coverage or the limits of "underlying insurance" have been exhausted. . . . 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. 2007-08 Westchester Policy (Ex. G), Section I Coverages, ¶ 1(a). 13
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 14 of 23. PageID #: 14
30.
Thus, each of the Westchester Policies imposed on Westchester a duty
to defend the Gastaldi Lawsuit from its outset, where the suit fell within the coverage afforded by the Westchester Policies (which it did); and where the “Underlying Insurance” was not available and collectible, or did not provide coverage (which it was not and did not). IMGA’s Claim Under the Westchester Policies 31. IMG and IMGA provided timely notice of the Gastaldi Lawsuit to
Westchester. Thereafter, as IMG and IMGA did with Great Divide, the parties repeatedly communicated about coverage issues, and exchanged numerous letters concerning the Gastaldi Lawsuit, in which IMG and IMGA explained the bases for coverage under the Westchester Policies. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a compilation of recent letters concerning their positions. As recently as March 14, 2011, Westchester reiterated its refusal to provide coverage. 32. The Gastaldi Lawsuit alleges, among other things, “Property
Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” as those terms are defined by the Westchester Policies. Notably, the definitions of “Property Damage” and “Occurrence” in the Westchester Policies and Great Divide Policies are virtually identical. 33. Additionally, none of the exclusions or conditions contained in the
Westchester Policies operate to preclude coverage for IMG and IMGA’s claims. 14
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 15 of 23. PageID #: 15
34.
As discussed above, the 2005-06 Great Divide Policy’s $1 million
“Property Damage” sub-limit has been exhausted. Under the 2005-06 Westchester Policy, Westchester is obligated to reimburse IMG and IMGA for that portion of the Gastaldi settlement payment in excess of the 2005-06 Great Divide Policy’s $1 million “Retained Limit.” Westchester has breached its obligation by refusing to pay IMG and IMGA $4 million. 35. To the extent any of the other Westchester Policies are deemed to
apply, those policies apply excess of the $10,000 “Self-Insured Retention” in each policy year, because insurance under the other Great Divide Policies is not available or collectible. In such event, Westchester has likewise breached its obligations under those policies. 36. In addition to its duty to indemnify, Westchester had a duty to defend
IMG and IMGA in the Gastaldi Lawsuit under one or more of the Westchester Policies. As described above, the Gastaldi Lawsuit alleged “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” under the Westchester Policies. Westchester breached this duty by refusing to honor its duty to defend IMG and IMGA in the Gastaldi Lawsuit. 37. Until the case settled, the Gastaldi plaintiffs sought damages well in
excess of any limits afforded by IMG’s “Underlying Insurance.” Westchester’s 15
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 16 of 23. PageID #: 16
refusal to acknowledge its duty to defend left IMG and IMGA uninsured and unprotected throughout the Gastaldi Lawsuit. Moreover, the applicable limits of the “Underlying Insurance” are exhausted, thereby also invoking Westchester’s duty to defend under these circumstances. Because of its breach, in addition to its indemnity obligation for the Gastaldi settlement payment in excess of the 2005-06 Great Divide Policy’s $1 million “Retained Limit,” Westchester is obligated under one or more of the Westchester Policies to pay the remaining amount of IMG and IMGA’s defense costs associated with the Gastaldi Lawsuit. The total amount of these defense costs exceeds $5 million, plus interest. COUNT I (Breach of Contract – Duty to Indemnify) 38. IMG and IMGA incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through
37 of this Complaint as fully set forth herein. 39. IMG and IMGA have complied with all applicable conditions
precedent contained in the Westchester Policies. Additionally, none of the exclusions in the Westchester Policies preclude coverage for IMG and IMGA’s claims.
16
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 17 of 23. PageID #: 17
40.
Westchester has a duty to indemnify IMG and IMGA under one or
more of the Westchester Policies because the Gastaldi Lawsuit sought alleged “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence.” 41. Westchester has materially breached its obligation under one or more
of the Westchester Policies regarding its duty to indemnify IMG and IMGA in the Gastaldi Lawsuit for those sums in excess of the “Retained Limit,” as defined by the Westchester Policies. 42. As a direct and proximate result of Westchester’s breach, Westchester
has deprived IMG and IMGA of the benefit of the insurance policies for which IMG has paid substantial premiums, and has caused IMG and IMGA to incur significant legal fees and expenses. 43. IMG and IMGA have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial,
plus interest and appropriate damages. As set forth above, this amount is $4 million, which is the difference between the $5 million settlement payment for the Gastaldi Lawsuit and the $1 million “Retained Limit” under the 2005-06 Great Divide Policy, plus interest and other appropriate damages.
17
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 18 of 23. PageID #: 18
COUNT II (Breach of Contract -- Duty to Defend) 44. IMG and IMGA incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through
43 of this Complaint as fully set forth herein. 45. Westchester had a duty to defend IMG and IMGA under the
Westchester Policies because the Gastaldi Lawsuit alleged “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence.” 46. By failing to defend IMG and IMGA in the Gastaldi Lawsuit,
Westchester materially breached its obligation under one or more of the Westchester Policies. 47. As a direct and proximate result of Westchester’s breach, Westchester
has deprived IMG and IMGA of the benefit of the insurance for which IMG has paid substantial premiums to Westchester, and has caused IMG and IMGA to incur significant legal defense fees and expenses. 48. IMG and IMGA have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial,
which consists of unreimbursed defense costs associated with the Gastaldi Lawsuit, plus interest and other appropriate damages. This amount exceeds $5 million.
18
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 19 of 23. PageID #: 19
COUNT III (Bad Faith Denial of Insurance Coverage) 49. IMGA incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 48 of
this Complaint as fully set forth herein. 50. Westchester has wrongfully denied all coverage for the losses IMG
and IMGA incurred in defending and settling the Gastaldi Lawsuit. Despite repeated requests, Westchester continues to refuse to acknowledge any coverage under the Westchester Policies. 51. Westchester’s wrongful denial of coverage constitutes bad faith.
Among other things, Westchester had no reasonable justification for its denial of coverage. 52. Accordingly, IMG and IMGA are entitled to recover from
Westchester extra-contractual damages, including without limitation compensatory damages flowing from Westchester’s bad faith denials, attorneys’ fees incurred by IMG and IMGA pursuing coverage in light of Westchester’s wrongful denial of coverage, pre-judgment interest, punitive damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
19
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 20 of 23. PageID #: 20
COUNT IV (Declaratory Judgment on Westchester’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify) 53. IMG and IMGA incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through
52 of this Complaint as fully set forth herein. 54. Westchester owed IMG and IMGA a duty to defend and indemnify
them in the Gastaldi Lawsuit. 55. Westchester’s failure to pay any of IMG and IMGA’s defense costs
and settlement payment in connection with the Gastaldi Lawsuit constitutes a material breach of its duties and obligations under the Westchester Policies. 56. In light of the above, there exists an “actual controversy” between the
parties appropriate for the entry of a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201, in IMG and IMGA’s favor. 57. IMG and IMGA are entitled to a declaration that Westchester
breached one or more of the Westchester Policies; that Westchester had a duty to defend and indemnify IMG and IMGA in the Gastaldi Lawsuit; and that Westchester owes IMG and IMGA amounts to be determined by the Court. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, IMG and IMGA respectfully seek the following:
20
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 21 of 23. PageID #: 21
A.
That the Court enter judgment in favor of IMG and IMGA on all causes of action;
B.
On all causes of action, an award of damages in IMG and IMGA’s favor in an amount to be determined at trial;
C.
On IMG and IMGA’s Third Cause of Action, extra-contractual damages, including without limitation compensatory damages flowing from Westchester’s bad faith denials, attorneys’ fees incurred by IMG and IMGA pursuing coverage in light of Westchester’s wrongful denial of coverage, pre-judgment interest, punitive damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate;
D.
On IMG and IMGA’s Fourth Cause of Action, a declaration that (a) Westchester materially breached one or more of the Westchester Policies; and (b) Westchester has an obligation to pay defense costs and indemnity payments for the Gastaldi Lawsuit in amounts determined by this Court;
E.
On all claims for relief, an award of IMG and IMGA’s reasonable attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and the expenses of this action; 21
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 22 of 23. PageID #: 22
F.
On all claims for relief, for such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper; and
G.
That this case be tried by a jury.
Respectfully submitted, /s/Lynn R. Larsen__________ Lynn Rowe Larsen (0055824) lynn@timsweeneylaw.com Timothy F. Sweeney (0040027) tim@timsweeneylaw.com LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY FARRELL SWEENEY The 820 Building, Suite 430 820 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113 (216) 241-5003 (216) 241-3138 (fax) Counsel for Plaintiffs IMG Worldwide, Inc. and IMG Academies, LLP Of Counsel: Brent W. Brougher, Georgia Bar No. 086373 bbrougher@kilpatricktownsend.com Ellen P. McCarley, Georgia Bar No. 461982 emccarley@kilpatricktownsend.com KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 815-6500 (404) 815-6555
22
Case: 1:11-cv-01594-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/02/11 23 of 23. PageID #: 23
REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY IMG and IMGA hereby request that this case be tried to a jury.
/s/Lynn R. Larsen__________ Lynn Rowe Larsen (0055824) Timothy F. Sweeney (0040027) Attorneys for Plaintiffs IMG Worldwide, Inc. and IMG Academies, LLP
23

Published under a Creative Commons License By attribution, non-commercial
AttachmentSize
Img Worldwide, Inc et al v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company Complaint.pdf68.03 KB

Like us on facebook!