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

MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC v. SWISS RE INTERNATIONAL S.E. et al 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 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 1 of 79 PageID #: 9
EXHIBIT A-PART 1
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 2 of 79 PageID #: 10
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) SWISS RE INTERNATIONAL S.E. f/k/a ) SR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS ) INSURANCE COMPANY PLC; LIBERTY ) MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; ZURICH ) AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; ) CHARTIS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY; ) ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; ) STARR TECHNICAL RISKS AGENCY, INC.; ) GENERAL SECURITY INDEMNITY ) COMPANY OF ARIZONA; ARCH INSURANCE ) COMPANY; LANCASHIRE INSURANCE ) COMPANY LIMITED; CATLIN, LLOYD’S ) SYNDICATE NO. 2003 SJC; QBE MARINE & ) ENERGY SYNDICATE 1036; NAVIGATORS ) MANAGEMENT COMPANY ) INC. f/k/a NAVIGATORS SPECIAL RISKS, INC. ) ) Defendants. ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Motiva Enterprises LLC (“Motiva” or “Plaintiff”), on its own behalf, by and through its undersigned counsel, for its Verified Complaint against defendants Swiss Re International S.E. f/k/a SR International Business Insurance Company PLC, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Zurich American Insurance Company, Chartis Property Casualty Company, ACE American Insurance Company, Starr Technical Risks Agency, Inc., General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona, Arch Insurance Company, Lancashire Insurance Company Limited, Catlin, Lloyd’s Syndicate No. 2003 SJC, QBE Marine and Energy Syndicate 1036, and Navigators Management, Inc., f/k/a Navigators Special Risks, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants” or
C.A. No.:
DB1/ 71770537.1
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 3 of 79 PageID #: 11
“Insurers”), alleges upon knowledge with respect to its own actions and upon information and belief as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action presents an exigent dispute in which Motiva requests emergency relief
to preclude Defendants from wrongfully pursuing arbitration in London over disputes that the parties contractually agreed to litigate in the courts of the State of Delaware. 2. In consideration of premiums paid by Motiva, Defendants issued a Construction
All Risks insurance policy to Motiva, Policy No. MHOIJ07150 (the “Policy”), indemnifying Motiva against all risks of damage to Motiva’s insured property in relation to the Port Arthur Refinery Crude Expansion Project (the “Project”).1 3. Under the express terms of the Policy, Defendants agreed that any dispute
concerning the interpretation of terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions contained in the Policy are governed by Delaware law. 4. Defendants also agreed to submit all disputes with Motiva, except disputes
regarding the amount to be paid under the Policy, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Delaware and to comply with all requirements to enable such jurisdiction. 5. On August 22, 2012, Motiva filed an action in the Superior Court of Delaware
(the “Superior Court Action”) (see Ex. C) seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that the corrosion exclusion does not apply to this loss and (2) damages incurred as a result of fraud and misrepresentations perpetrated by the Defendants’ agent Loss Adjuster, Cunningham Lindsey International (the “Adjuster”). See Ex. D.
The Policy and its extensions are attached as Exhibit A, and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Verified Complaint.
DB1/ 71770537.1
1
2
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 4 of 79 PageID #: 12
6.
Notwithstanding the express provisions governing choice of law and forum
selection in the Policy, Defendants filed a notice of removal removing the Superior Court Action to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. See Ex. E. 7. On November 6, 2012, Defendants again breached the express provisions of the
Policy by purporting to initiate an arbitration action in London, seeking resolution of liability issues, contract interpretation issues and conciliation of other Policy disputes, including fraud and misrepresentation claims, by a three-member ARIAS (UK) arbitration panel. Under the Policy, all of these issues plainly fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Delaware state courts, not a London arbitrator. See Ex. F. 8. In their unauthorized arbitration filing, Defendants demand that Motiva appoint a
single arbitrator to serve on a three-arbitrator panel. In their demand, Defendants threaten to petition ARIAS (UK) to appoint an arbitrator to fill the vacancy if Motiva fails to select an arbitrator within 14 days (i.e., no later than November 20, 2012). See Ex. F at 8. Defendants’ demand places Motiva in the impossible position of appointing an arbitrator for an ultra vires arbitration proceeding in direct violation of the Policy’s terms – or risk losing its right to select an arbitrator. 9. Accordingly, Motiva respectfully requests that this Court (1) temporarily restrain,
preliminarily enjoin, and permanently enjoin Defendants from pursuing this prohibited arbitration; (2) declare that all disputes arising out of and relating to the Policy except only for those disputes regarding solely the amount to be paid must be filed in the courts of the State of Delaware; and (3) declare that Defendants have breached the terms of the Policy.
DB1/ 71770537.1
3
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 5 of 79 PageID #: 13
JURISDICTION 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to the
Delaware Uniform Arbitration Act (the “DUAA”), and specifically pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 5702(c). 11. This Court has jurisdiction to grant equitable and injunctive relief pursuant to 10
Del. C. §§ 341 and 342 and to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 6501. PARTIES 12. Motiva is a Delaware limited liability company that refines, distributes, and
markets oil products in and throughout the eastern and southern United States. Motiva’s principal place of business is in Houston, Texas. 13. Swiss Re International S.E. f/k/a/ SR International Business Insurance Company
PLC is an excess and surplus lines company, chartered in the United Kingdom, with its principal place of business in the United Kingdom. 14. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. 15. Zurich American Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Illinois with its principal place of business in Schaumberg, Illinois. 16. Chartis Property Casualty Company (formerly known as AIG Casualty Company)
is a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in New York, New York. 17. ACE American Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
DB1/ 71770537.1
4
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 6 of 79 PageID #: 14
18.
Starr Technical Risks Agency, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of New York with its principal place of business in New York, New York. 19. General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona is a corporation organized under
the laws of the State of Arizona with its principal place of business in New York, New York. 20. Arch Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Missouri with its principal place of business in New Jersey. 21. Bermuda. 22. Catlin, Lloyd’s Syndicate No. 2003 SJC is an unincorporated association with its Lancashire Insurance Company Limited is a foreign insurer domiciled in
principal place of business in London, United Kingdom. 23. QBE Marine and Energy Syndicate 1036 is an unincorporated association with its
principal place of business in London, United Kingdom. 24. Navigators Management Company, Inc. f/k/a Navigators Special Risks, Inc. is an
unknown entity, with unknown corporate residence. It likely is an agent for an insurer that has not been disclosed to Motiva. FACTS 25. On December 10, 2007, Defendants issued the Policy to Motiva. On its face, the
Policy states that it is issued and delivered as a Texas surplus lines coverage. 26. The Policy commenced on September 1, 2007, for an initial period expiring on
July 1, 2010. It was extended by various endorsements including Endorsement No. 010, which extended the Policy to cover the time period of June 1, 2012 to July 1, 2012. TERMS OF THE POLICY 27. The Policy covers “All Risks” of Damage to the Insured Property forming part of
the Project from any cause whatsoever not excluded in the Policy at the site of the Project
DB1/ 71770537.1
5
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 7 of 79 PageID #: 15
occurring during the period of the Policy. The term “Damage” is defined to mean physical damage, physical loss or physical destruction. The “Insured Property” includes all materials, equipment, supplies, machinery, and all other property of the Project including temporary works/structures including spare parts, common facilities, and facilities which are improvements, tie-ins, connections, and additions/modifications to existing facilities, pipelines, and all other property collectively known as the Project, to the extent that the value thereof is included in the estimated insurable value declared/intended to be included in the final insurable value. 28. Under the Policy, Cunningham Lindsey International was appointed to serve as
Adjuster. See Ex. A at 7. The Adjuster serves as liaison between Motiva and Defendants and analyzes claims to determine if they fall within the scope of the Policy. Once the Adjuster analyzes a claim and makes a recommendation as to payment, it becomes an “adjusted claim.” The Adjuster’s performance is a critical predicate for payment insofar as once an “adjusted claim” is filed, Defendants have 30 calendar days to pay the claim. Further, acceptance of satisfactory proof of loss to the Insurers and a loss occurrence are prerequisites to the Policy’s requirement that the Insurers advance Motiva any mutually agreed amount of the estimated loss prior to the production of a final proof of loss. 29. Section Ten of the Policy Schedule entitled “Law and Jurisdiction” provides that
“[i]n the event of a dispute between the Insured and Insurers this policy shall be subject to the Law of Delaware [and] Jurisdiction of the State of Delaware, USA.” See Ex. A at 7. 30. Section Four of the Policy General Conditions entitled “Mediation/Arbitration”
provides that the parties should first mediate prior to filing an arbitration action. See id. at 21. The Policy goes on to state that if mediation is unsuccessful or either party refuses to participate in mediation, “then either party may refer the Dispute to arbitration, in respect to quantum only.”
DB1/ 71770537.1
6
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 8 of 79 PageID #: 16
See id. (emphasis added). Section Four reiterates that arbitration is permitted under the Policy exclusively when “the Principal Insured and the Insurer(s) shall fail to agree as to the amount to be paid under this Policy.” See id. at 22 (emphasis added). 31. Section Thirteen of the Policy General Conditions entitled “Disputes Clause”
reiterates the parties’ agreement to litigate all disputes within the State of Delaware. Specifically, Section Thirteen provides that “the Underwriters hereon, at the request of the Insured, will submit to the jurisdiction of a Court of competent jurisdiction within the State of Delaware.” See id. Section Thirteen also limits the applicability of the arbitration clause: “For disputes relating solely to the amount to be paid under this Policy such disputes shall be governed by the terms of the arbitration clause.” See id. at 26 (emphasis added). 32. In the event that either party commences an arbitration proceeding, the Policy
mandates that that within 14 days of being called upon to select an arbitrator, the called upon party must select an arbitrator and notify the other party of its selection. See id. at 22. 33. If the called upon party fails to select an arbitrator within 14 days, then the other
party shall make an application to ARIAS (UK) to appoint an arbitrator to fill the vacancy. See id. EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT DISPUTE 34. This dispute began after Motiva suffered extensive losses to its Insured Property
at its Port Arthur refinery from physical damage due to caustic cracking discovered in connection with fires that occurred on or about June 9, 2012. 35. On June 12, 2012, Motiva gave timely and proper notice of its loss to Defendants
through the Adjuster. See Ex. B.
DB1/ 71770537.1
7
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 9 of 79 PageID #: 17
36.
Thereafter, Motiva gave the Adjuster access to the Port Arthur Refinery. The
Adjuster and other representatives of Defendants, including Defendants’ expert consultants, have had access to the insured site and the Damage to the Insured Property. Motiva has diligently attempted to find ways to accommodate the Insurers’ investigation, including an offer to mediate over the investigation protocol, but a stalemate still exists at the present time. Additionally, Motiva has stored representative damaged property at its own expense for inspection and analysis by the Adjuster and Defendants. 37. On August 22, 2012, the Adjuster issued a Reservation of Rights Letter on behalf
of the Insurers addressing liability under various Policy provisions in the circumstances of this loss. The Reservation of Rights Letter indicated that the damages may be excluded by one or more of the exclusions or other provisions of the Policy. 38. Presently, the parties continue to dispute whether the Policy provides coverage for
the Damage to the Insured Property. 39. At all times, Motiva has complied with the claims procedures set forth in the
Policy. However, to do this day, neither the Adjuster nor Defendants have advised Motiva of any coverage determination despite reasonable time and opportunity to do so. PENDING LITIGATION AND ARBITRATION 40. Motiva filed a Complaint for declaratory relief in the Superior Court of Delaware
on August 22, 2012, seeking a judgment interpreting the policy terms and a declaration that the corrosion exclusion does not apply to this loss. See Exhibit C. 41. Subsequently, Motiva filed with the Superior Court a First Amended Complaint
adding the Adjuster as a defendant and asserting allegations of fraud and negligent misrepresentation. See Exhibit D.
DB1/ 71770537.1
8
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 10 of 79 PageID #: 18
42.
In contravention of the Policy’s requirement that all disputes arising from the
Policy be brought in Delaware state courts, Defendants removed the Superior Court Action to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”). See Ex. E. Motiva has moved to remand the action to the Superior Court, which motion has been briefed but currently has not been resolved by the District Court. Accordingly, the District Court has not yet determined whether it has jurisdiction to hear Motiva’s claims. See Ex. H. 43. In defiance of the Policy’s forum selection clause, Defendants purported to serve
upon Motiva a “Notice of Arbitration and Demand for Appointment of Arbitrator” on November 6, 2012. See Ex. F. 44. On that same date, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay all litigation proceedings
before the District Court pending the outcome of the London arbitration Defendants purported to initiate. See Ex. G. 45. In their Notice of Arbitration, Defendants purported to demand that “all disputes”
be arbitrated. Defendants stated that they anticipate that the issues to be arbitrated include “whether [the parties] had an agreement on the wording of Mediation/Arbitration Clause, the scope of the disputes to be arbitrated, [Motiva’s] refusal to allow loss investigation and adjustment . . . the applicability, if any, of the various sub limits, the applicability, if any, of the deductible, the damages claim ([including] the basis of the claims . . . if any) made by [Motiva] in respect of alleged fraud and negligent misrepresentation . . . .” See Ex. F at 7. Thus, Defendants purported to demand that an arbitrator decide issues of liability and Policy interpretation – disputes that arise from the Policy and, pursuant to the express terms of the Policy, should be litigated in Delaware state courts.
DB1/ 71770537.1
9
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 11 of 79 PageID #: 19
46.
In their Notice of Arbitration, Defendants demanded that Motiva “appoint its
arbitrator pursuant to the terms of the Policy [, which] provides [Motiva] 14 calendar days from being called upon to appoint an arbitrator to select an arbitrator and notify the [Defendants] of its selection.” See id. at 8. Therefore, according to Defendants Motiva must appoint an arbitrator no later than November 20, 2012 or waive its right to do so. “If Motiva does not select an arbitrator [by November 20, 2012], the [Defendants] will make an application to ARIAS (UK) to appoint an arbitrator to fill the vacancy.” See id. 47. As a result, Motiva has been given a Hobson’s choice: (1) appoint an arbitrator
for an arbitration proceeding commenced in direct violation of the Policy’s Delaware forum selection clause or (2) do nothing and risk losing the right to appoint an arbitrator. Without a temporary restraining order and ultimately an injunction, Motiva will suffer irreparable harm by losing its contractual right to have its disputes with the Defendants decided under Delaware law as interpreted and applied by Delaware’s state courts. Money damages are an inadequate remedy to redress this irreparable harm. Accordingly, Motiva requests injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent Defendants from circumventing the parties’ contractually agreed upon choice of Delaware as the forum for dispute resolution. COUNT I (Injunction of an Arbitration Proceeding) 48. forth herein. 49. Defendants have purported to initiate arbitration proceedings against Motiva Motiva repeats and realleges all of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set
relating to claims of liability and contract interpretation.
DB1/ 71770537.1
10
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 12 of 79 PageID #: 20
50.
The plain language of the Policy requires the parties to pursue all claims arising
from the Policy, excluding only claims regarding the amount to be paid, in the courts of the State of Delaware. 51. Defendants chose to ignore the parties’ agreed upon choice of forum and instead
initiated arbitration proceedings in London. 52. Pursuant to the DUAA, 10 Del. C. § 5703(b), and 10 Del. C. §§ 341-42, this
Court should enter an Order temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoining Defendants from arbitrating any disputes with Motiva that do not relate to the amount to be paid under the Policy. Specifically, inter alia, the Court should temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoin Defendants from proceeding with the arbitration they purported to initiate on November 6, 2012 through their Notice to Arbitrate. 53. Motiva has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT II (Declaratory Relief) 54. forth herein. 55. Defendants have purported to initiate arbitration proceedings against Motiva Motiva repeats and realleges all of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set
relating to claims of liability and contract interpretation. 56. The plain language of the Policy requires the parties to pursue all claims arising
from the Policy, excluding only claims regarding the amount to be paid under the Policy, in the courts of the State of Delaware. 57. Defendants chose to ignore the parties’ agreed upon choice of forum and instead
initiated arbitration proceedings in London.
DB1/ 71770537.1
11
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 13 of 79 PageID #: 21
58. that:
Thus, the issues raised by Motiva in this Verified Complaint present a controversy
(1) involves the rights or other legal relations of Motiva, insofar as the declaration sought will clarify what the parties’ rights are under the terms of the Policy; (2) comprises a claim of right or other legal interest by Motiva that is asserted pursuant to the Policy against Defendants who have an interest in contesting the claim to minimize or avoid their own obligations under the Policy; (3) is between parties whose interests are real and adverse, pursuant to their differing interpretations of their rights and obligations under the Policy and applicable principles of law; (4) is ripe for judicial declaration because: (a) Defendants have filed an arbitration action seeking to force Motiva to submit to arbitration and select an arbitrator; (b) until this Court declares that the choice of law and venue provisions are enforceable and precludes Defendants from pursuing arbitration for any claims arising out of the Policy (with the limited exception of claims for the amount to be paid), Motiva is faced with uncertainty as to its legal obligations under the Policy’s provision regarding appointment of an arbitrator; and (c) as a result of the foregoing, Motiva has incurred and is continuing to incur significant expense regarding an arbitration that should never have been filed. 59. Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 6501, this Court should enter a declaration proclaiming
that the Policy prohibits Defendants from arbitrating with Motiva any issues arising out of or relating to the Policy with the exception of the amount to be paid. COUNT III (Breach of Contract) 60. forth herein. 61. Defendants. 62. Motiva has duly performed all of the conditions and duties imposed on it under The Policy is a legally valid and enforceable contract by and among Motiva and Motiva repeats and realleges all of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set
the Policy and at all times has remained ready, willing, and able to continue doing so.
DB1/ 71770537.1
12
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 14 of 79 PageID #: 22
63.
By the conduct described above, including Defendants’ refusal to comply with the
Policy’s dispute resolution provisions, Defendants have, without justification or excuse, breached their contractual duties, including their implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing owed to Motiva pursuant to the Policy. 64. Defendants have expressly breached Sections Four and Thirteen of the Policy
General Conditions and Section Ten of the Policy Schedule by initiating arbitration proceedings for claims relating to liability, Policy interpretation, and resolution of Motiva’s fraud and misrepresentation claims instead of pursuing these claims in the parties’ agreed upon forum of Delaware state courts. 65. 66. Defendants’ breaches are willful. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be proven
as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Motiva respectfully requests that this honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants as follows:
A.
Temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoining Defendants, and their
agents, from prosecuting the arbitration that they have purported to bring against Motiva; B. Permanently enjoining Defendants from initiating or prosecuting any arbitration
proceedings against Motiva relating to or arising out of the Policy except a proceeding limited to determination of the amount to be paid under the Policy; C. Declaring that the Policy prohibits Defendants from initiating or prosecuting any
arbitration proceedings against Motiva relating to or arising out of the Policy except for any proceeding limited to determination of the amount to be paid under the Policy;
DB1/ 71770537.1
13
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 15 of 79 PageID #: 23
D. E. F.
Declaring that Defendants have breached the Policy; Awarding Motiva damages in an amount to be determined at trial; Awarding Motiva its expenses and costs incurred in bringing this action,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and G. and proper. Awarding Motiva such additional and further relief as the Court may deem just
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP /s/ Colm F. Connolly Colm F. Connolly (I.D. No. 3151) Nemours Building 1007 North Orange Street Suite 501 Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 574-7290 cconnolly@morganlewis.com WILKS, LUKOFF & BRACEGIRDLE, LLC /s/ Thad J. Bracegirdle Paul M. Lukoff (I.D. No. 96) Thad J. Bracegirdle (I.D. No. 3691) 1300 N. Grant Avenue, Suite 100 Wilmington, DE 19806 (302) 225-0850 plukoff@wlblaw.com tbracegirdle@wlblaw.com Dated: November 13, 2012 Attorneys for Plaintiff Motiva Enterprises LLC
DB1/ 71770537.1
14
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 16 of 79 PageID #: 24
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 17 of 79 PageID #: 25
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 18 of 79 PageID #: 26
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 19 of 79 PageID #: 27
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 20 of 79 PageID #: 28
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 21 of 79 PageID #: 29
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 22 of 79 PageID #: 30
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 23 of 79 PageID #: 31
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 24 of 79 PageID #: 32
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 25 of 79 PageID #: 33
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 26 of 79 PageID #: 34
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 27 of 79 PageID #: 35
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 28 of 79 PageID #: 36
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 29 of 79 PageID #: 37
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 30 of 79 PageID #: 38
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 31 of 79 PageID #: 39
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 32 of 79 PageID #: 40
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 33 of 79 PageID #: 41
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 34 of 79 PageID #: 42
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 35 of 79 PageID #: 43
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 36 of 79 PageID #: 44
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 37 of 79 PageID #: 45
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 38 of 79 PageID #: 46
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 39 of 79 PageID #: 47
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 40 of 79 PageID #: 48
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 41 of 79 PageID #: 49
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 42 of 79 PageID #: 50
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 43 of 79 PageID #: 51
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 44 of 79 PageID #: 52
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 45 of 79 PageID #: 53
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 46 of 79 PageID #: 54
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 47 of 79 PageID #: 55
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 48 of 79 PageID #: 56
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 49 of 79 PageID #: 57
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 50 of 79 PageID #: 58
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 51 of 79 PageID #: 59
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 52 of 79 PageID #: 60
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 53 of 79 PageID #: 61
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 54 of 79 PageID #: 62
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 55 of 79 PageID #: 63
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 56 of 79 PageID #: 64
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 57 of 79 PageID #: 65
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 58 of 79 PageID #: 66
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 59 of 79 PageID #: 67
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 60 of 79 PageID #: 68
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 61 of 79 PageID #: 69
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 62 of 79 PageID #: 70
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 63 of 79 PageID #: 71
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 64 of 79 PageID #: 72
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 65 of 79 PageID #: 73
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 66 of 79 PageID #: 74
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 67 of 79 PageID #: 75
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 68 of 79 PageID #: 76
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 69 of 79 PageID #: 77
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 70 of 79 PageID #: 78
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 71 of 79 PageID #: 79
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 72 of 79 PageID #: 80
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 73 of 79 PageID #: 81
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 74 of 79 PageID #: 82
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 75 of 79 PageID #: 83
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 76 of 79 PageID #: 84
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 77 of 79 PageID #: 85
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 78 of 79 PageID #: 86
Case 1:12-cv-01460-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 79 of 79 PageID #: 87

Published under a Creative Commons License By attribution, non-commercial
AttachmentSize
D.E. 1-1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Chartis Property Casualty Company - Exhibit 1, Complaint.pdf3.13 MB

Like us on facebook!