travelers indemnity co. v. ace property & casualty insurance company et al complaint

8/10/2019 TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. v. ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al complaint

1/31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO.,

Plaintiff,vs.

ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCECO., ARROWOOD INDEMNITY CO.,CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTYMUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

MERRIMACK MUTUAL INSURANCECOMPANY, ONEBEACON AMERICAINSURANCE COMPANY, ONEBEACONINSURANCE COMPANY, PUBLIC SERVICEINSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED STATES FIREINSURANCE COMPANY, ALFA MUTUALINSURANCE COMPANY, ARGONAUTINSURANCE COMPANY, CINCINNATIINSURANCE COMPANY, EMPLOYERSINSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU,INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,and NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Defendants.

::

:::::::::::

::::::::::::::

CIVIL ACTION NO:3:14-cv-1667

NOVEMBER 10, 2014

COMPLAINT

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a reinsurance case. Reinsurance has been described as insurance for

insurance companies. In a reinsurance transaction, one insurance company called the

cedent or ceding insurer pays a premium to a second company, called a reinsurer. In

return, the reinsurer accepts some or all of the risks of the insurance companys policies.

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 1 of 31


2/31

-2-

2. The ceding insurer in this case is The Travelers Indemnity Company

(Travelers). The reinsurers in this case are several companies that participated in a reinsurance

pool known as the Excess and Casualty Reinsurance Association, or ECRA (together, the

Reinsurers).

3. Travelers insured the Fitchburg Gas & Electric Light Company (Fitchburg

Gas). Fitchburg Gas placed certain insurance claims with Travelers, and Travelers settled them.

Travelers then turned to the Reinsurers and asked them to pay their share of the settlement and

related expenses. The Reinsurers refused.

4. This is an action for contract breach. In refusing to pay their share of thesettlement between Travelers and Fitchburg Gas, and of the related expenses, the Reinsurers

have breached their reinsurance contracts with Travelers. Travelers has been damaged by the

Reinsurers breach in an amount not less than $169,849.50.

II. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. The Plaintiff, Travelers, is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of

Connecticut, with its principal place of business in Connecticut.

6. The Defendant, ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company (ACE Property),

is a Pennsylvania corporation. Upon information and belief, ACE Property is the successor to

Aetna Casualty Company. Through its participation in ECRA, ACE Property was a participating

reinsurer in the reinsurance contracts referenced in Paragraphs 45 and 46 below. The

reinsurance contracts were made and/or were to be performed in the State of Connecticut. This

Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over ACE Property.

7. The Defendant, Arrowood Indemnity Company (Arrowood), is a Delaware

corporation. Upon information and belief, Arrowood is the successor to Security Insurance



3/31

-3-

Company of Hartford. Through its participation in ECRA, Arrowood was a participating



Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over Arrowood.

8. The Defendant, Continental Casualty Company (CCC), is an Illinois

corporation. Through its participation in ECRA, CCC was a participating reinsurer in the

reinsurance contracts referenced in Paragraphs 45 and 46 below. The reinsurance contracts were

made and/or were to be performed in the State of Connecticut. This Court therefore has personal

jurisdiction over CCC.9. The Defendant, Continental Insurance Company (CIC), is upon information and

belief an Illinois corporation. Through its participation in ECRA, CIC was a participating



Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over CIC.

10. Upon information and belief, at the time it entered into the reinsurance contracts

referenced in Paragraphs 45 and 46 below, CIC held a license from the Connecticut Department

of Insurance to conduct an insurance and/or reinsurance business within the State of Connecticut.

11. CIC presently does not hold a license from the Connecticut Department of

Insurance to conduct an insurance and/or reinsurance business within the State of Connecticut.

12. The Defendant, Factory Mutual Insurance Company (Factory Mutual), is a

Rhode Island corporation. Upon information and belief, Factory Mutual is successor to or was

formerly known as Allendale Mutual Insurance Company. Through its participation in ECRA,

Factory Mutual was a participating reinsurer in the reinsurance contracts referenced in



4/31

-4-

Paragraphs 45 and 46 below. The reinsurance contracts were made and/or were to be performed

in the State of Connecticut. This Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over Factory Mutual.

13. The Defendant, Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover), is a New Hampshire

corporation. Through its participation in ECRA, Hanover was a participating reinsurer in the



jurisdiction over Hanover.

14. The Defendant, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual), is a

Massachusetts corporation. Through its participation in ECRA, Liberty Mutual was aparticipating reinsurer in the reinsurance contracts referenced in Paragraphs 45 and 46 below.

The reinsurance contracts were made and/or were to be performed in the State of Connecticut.

This Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over Liberty Mutual.

15. The Defendant, Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Merrimack), is a

Massachusetts corporation. Through its participation in ECRA, Merrimack was a participating



Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over Merrimack.

16. The Defendant, OneBeacon America Insurance Company (OneBeacon

America), is a Massachusetts corporation. Upon information and belief, OneBeacon America is

successor to or was formerly known as Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company.

Through its participation in ECRA, OneBeacon America was a participating reinsurer in the




5/31

-5-


jurisdiction over OneBeacon America.

17. The Defendant, OneBeacon Insurance Company (OneBeacon), is a

Pennsylvania corporation. Upon information and belief, OneBeacon is successor to or was

formerly known as Potomac Insurance Company. Through its participation in ECRA,

OneBeacon was a participating reinsurer in the reinsurance contracts referenced in Paragraphs 45

and 46 below. The reinsurance contracts were made and/or were to be performed in the State of

Connecticut. This Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over OneBeacon.

18. The Defendant, Public Service Insurance Company (Public Service), is anIllinois corporation. Upon information and belief, Public Service is successor to or was formerly

known as Public Service Mutual Insurance Company. Through its participation in ECRA, Public

Service was a participating reinsurer in the reinsurance contracts referenced in Paragraphs 45 and

46 below. The reinsurance contracts were made and/or were to be performed in the State of

Connecticut. This Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over Public Service.

19. The Defendant, United States Fire Insurance Company (U.S. Fire), is a

Delaware corporation. Through its participation in ECRA, U.S. Fire was a participating



Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over U.S. Fire.

20. The Defendant, Alfa Mutual Insurance Company (Alfa), is an Alabama

corporation. Upon information and belief, Alfa is successor to or was formerly known as

Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Company. Through its participation in

ECRA, Alfa was a participating reinsurer in the reinsurance contract referenced in Paragraph 46



6/31

-6-

below. The reinsurance contract was made and/or was to be performed in the State of

Connecticut. This Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over Alfa.

21. Upon information and belief, at the time it entered into the reinsurance contract

referenced in Paragraph 46 below, Alfa held a license from the Connecticut Department of


22. Alfa presently does not hold a license from the Connecticut Department of


23. The Defendant, Argonaut Insurance Company (Argonaut), is an Illinois

corporation. Through its participation in ECRA, Argonaut was a participating reinsurer in thereinsurance contract referenced in Paragraph 46 below. The reinsurance contract was made

and/or was to be performed in the State of Connecticut. This Court therefore has personal

jurisdiction over Argonaut.

24. The Defendant, Cincinnati Insurance Company (Cincinnati), is an Ohio

corporation. Through its participation in ECRA, Cincinnati was a participating reinsurer in the

reinsurance contract referenced in Paragraph 46 below. The reinsurance contract was made


jurisdiction over Cincinnati.

25. The Defendant, Employers Insurance Company of Wausau (Wausau), is a

Wisconsin corporation. Upon information and belief, Wausau is successor to and/or was

formerly known as Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wausau. Through its

participation in ECRA, Wausau was a participating reinsurer in the reinsurance contract

referenced in Paragraph 46 below. The reinsurance contract was made and/or was to be



7/31

-7-

performed in the State of Connecticut. This Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over

Wausau.

26. The Defendant, Insurance Company of North America (INA), is a Pennsylvania

corporation. Through its participation in ECRA, INA was a participating reinsurer in the

reinsurance contract referenced in Paragraph 46 below. The reinsurance contract was made


jurisdiction over INA.

27. The Defendant, National Indemnity Company (NICO), is a Nebraska

corporation. Through its participation in ECRA, NICO was a participating reinsurer in thereinsurance contract referenced in Paragraph 46 below. The reinsurance contract was made


jurisdiction over NICO.

28. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1332. The action is between citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000.000 excluding interests and costs.

29. This action arises out of contracts made or to be performed in the State of

Connecticut. This Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over each of the Reinsurers by virtue

of Section 33-929 of the Connecticut General Statutes.

30. This action arises out of contracts that the Reinsurers freely entered into with

Travelers, a Connecticut corporation. In entering into such contracts, each of the Reinsurers

purposefully availed itself of the benefits and privileges of doing business in the State of

Connecticut.



8/31

-8-

31. This District is a proper venue for this action. Each of the Reinsurers is a

corporation that is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, and therefore pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1391(c)(2) each Reinsurer resides in this District for purposes of venue.

III. TRAVELERS INSURANCE OF FITCHBURG GAS

32. Travelers issued a liability insurance policy to Fitchburg Gas that bore policy

number T-KSLG-910341-69 (the 1969 Policy). The policy period of the 1969 Policy ran from

January 1, 1969 to January 1, 1970.

33. Travelers issued a liability insurance policy to Fitchburg Gas that bore policy

number T-KSLG-910341-70 (the 1970 Policy). The policy period of the 1970 Policy ran fromJanuary 1, 1970 to January 1, 1971.

34. Fitchburg Gas became the subject of claims alleging that it damaged the

environment.

35. Fitchburg Gas sought coverage from Travelers under the 1969 Policy and the

1970 Policy for the claims referenced in Paragraph 34.

36. Travelers disputed that Fitchburg Gas was entitled to coverage under the 1969

Policy and/or the 1970 Policy for the claims referenced in Paragraph 34.

37. Travelers and Fitchburg Gas settled the dispute referenced in Paragraph 36 by

way of a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release dated January 7, 2011.

38. Pursuant to the terms of the Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release,

Travelers paid a sum of money to Fitchburg Gas.

39. After paying the sum of money referenced in Paragraph 38, Travelers faced the

question of how to allocate its payment among its various insurance policies.

40. Travelers chose to allocate half of the payment to the 1969 Policy, and the other



9/31


10/31

-10-

reinsurance, when settled by [Travelers,] shall be binding on the Reinsurer, which shall be bound

to pay its proportion of such settlements.

48. The 1969 Facultative Certificate provides in part that the 1969 Reinsurers shall

pay a proportion of Travelers litigation expenses.

49. The 1970 Facultative Certificate provides in part that [a]ll claims involving this

reinsurance, when settled by [Travelers,] shall be binding on the Reinsurer, which shall be bound

to pay its proportion of such settlements.

50. The 1970 Facultative Certificate provides in part that the 1970 Reinsurers shall

pay a proportion of Travelers litigation expenses.51. The 1969 Reinsurers have appointed the Excess Treaty Management Corporation

(ETMC) as their claims handling agent.

52. The 1970 Reinsurers have appointed ETMC as their claims handling agent.

53. Travelers requested that the 1969 Reinsurers pay their share of the portion of the

Fitchburg Gas settlement payment that it allocated to the 1969 Policy.

54. Travelers requested that the 1969 Reinsurers pay their share of the portion of

Travelers litigation and other expenses referenced in Paragraph 42.

55. Through their claims handling agent, ETMC, the 1969 Reinsurers rejected the

requests referenced in Paragraphs 53 and 54 and refused to pay Travelers valid reinsurance

claims.

56. Travelers requested that the 1970 Reinsurers pay their share of the portion of the

Fitchburg Gas settlement payment that it allocated to the 1970 Policy.

57. Travelers requested that the 1970 Reinsurers pay their share of the portion of

Travelers litigation and other expenses referenced in Paragraph 43.



11/31

-11-

58. Through their claims handling agent, ETMC, the 1970 Reinsurers rejected the

requests referenced in Paragraphs 56 and 57 and refused to pay Travelers valid reinsurance

claims.

COUNT ONE Contract Breach Against ACE Property 1969 Facultative Certificate

59. Travelers repeats and realleges all of the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 58 as

if fully set forth herein.

60. The 1969 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and ACE Property.

61. Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1969Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

62. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to ACE Property

under the 1969 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.

63. ACE Property wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 62.

64. ACE Propertys wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim

constitutes a breach of the 1969 Facultative Certificate.

65. Travelers has been damaged by ACE Propertys breach of the 1969 Facultative

Certificate, in an amount not less than $10,559.94.

COUNT TWO Contract Breach Against Arrowood 1969 Facultative Certificate




and Arrowood.



12/31

-12-

68. Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1969

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

69. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Arrowood


70. Arrowood wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 69.

71. Arrowoods wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes

a breach of the 1969 Facultative Certificate.

72. Travelers has been damaged by Arrowoods breach of the 1969 FacultativeCertificate, in an amount not less than $4,225.27.

COUNT THREE Contract Breach Against CCC 1969 Facultative Certificate




and CCC.



76. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to CCC under the

1969 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.

77. CCC wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph 76.

78. CCCs wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a

breach of the 1969 Facultative Certificate.

79. Travelers has been damaged by CCCs breach of the 1969 Facultative Certificate,



13/31

-13-

in an amount not less than $19,852.47.

COUNT FOUR Contract Breach Against CIC 1969 Facultative Certificate




and CIC.



83. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to CIC under the1969 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.

84. CIC wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph 83.

85. CICs wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a


86. Travelers has been damaged by CICs breach of the 1969 Facultative Certificate,


COUNT FIVE Contract Breach Against Factory Mutual 1969 Facultative Certificate




and Factory Mutual.



90. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Factory Mutual



14/31

-14-


91. Factory Mutual wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 90.

92. Factory Mutuals wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim


93. Travelers has been damaged by Factory Mutuals breach of the 1969 Facultative

Certificate, in an amount not less than $2,112,63.

COUNT SIX Contract Breach Against Hanover 1969 Facultative Certificate

94. Travelers repeats and realleges all of the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 58 asif fully set forth herein.


and Hanover.



97. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Hanover under

the 1969 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.

98. Hanover wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph

97.

99. Hanovers wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a


100. Travelers has been damaged by Hanovers breach of the 1969 Facultative




15/31

-15-

COUNT SEVEN Contract Breach Against Liberty Mutual 1969 Facultative Certificate




and Liberty Mutual.



104. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Liberty Mutual

under the 1969 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.105. Liberty Mutual wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 104.

106. Liberty Mutuals wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim


107. Travelers has been damaged by Liberty Mutuals breach of the 1969 Facultative


COUNT EIGHT Contract Breach Against Merrimack 1969 Facultative Certificate




and Merrimack.



111. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Merrimack



16/31

-16-


112. Merrimack wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 111.

113. Merrimacks wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim


114. Travelers has been damaged by Merrimacks breach of the 1969 Facultative


COUNT NINE Contract Breach Against OneBeacon America 1969 FacultativeCertificate




and OneBeacon America.



118. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to OneBeacon

America under the 1969 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.

119. OneBeacon America wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced

in Paragraph 118.

120. OneBeacon Americas wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim


121. Travelers has been damaged by OneBeacon Americas breach of the 1969

Facultative Certificate, in an amount not less than $11,404.35.



17/31

-17-

COUNT TEN Contract Breach Against OneBeacon 1969 Facultative Certificate




and OneBeacon.




under the 1969 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.126. OneBeacon wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 125.

127. OneBeacons wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim


128. Travelers has been damaged by OneBeacons breach of the 1969 Facultative


COUNT ELEVEN Contract Breach Against Public Service 1969 Facultative Certificate




and Public Service.



132. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Public Service



18/31

-18-


133. Public Service wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 132. Public Service refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph 132,

even though it had paid another reinsurance claim arising out of Travelers insurance of

Fitchburg Gas, that Travelers submitted through a different claims handling agent.

134. Public Services wrongful refusal to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 132 constitutes a breach of the 1969 Facultative Certificate.

135. Travelers has been damaged by Public Services breach of the 1969 Facultative

Certificate, in an amount not less than $1,689.62.COUNT TWELVE Contract Breach Against U.S. Fire 1969 Facultative Certificate




and U.S. Fire.



139. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to U.S. Fire under


140. U.S. Fire wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph

139.

141. U.S. Fires wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes


142. Travelers has been damaged by U.S. Fires breach of the 1969 Facultative



19/31

-19-


COUNT THIRTEEN Contract Breach Against ACE Property 1970 FacultativeCertificate




and ACE Property.



146. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to ACE Property


147. ACE Property wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 146.

148. ACE Propertys wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim


149. Travelers has been damaged by ACE Propertys breach of the 1970 Facultative


COUNT FOURTEEN Contract Breach Against Alfa 1970 Facultative Certificate




and Alfa.





20/31

-20-

153. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Alfa under the


154. Alfa wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph 153.

155. Alfas wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a


156. Travelers has been damaged by Alfas breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate,


COUNT FIFTEEN Contract Breach Against Argonaut 1970 Facultative Certificate



and Argonaut.



160. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Argonaut under


161. Argonaut wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph

160.

162. Argonauts wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes


163. Travelers has been damaged by Argonauts breach of the 1970 Facultative




21/31

-21-

COUNT SIXTEEN Contract Breach Against Arrowood 1970 Facultative Certificate




and Arrowood.



167. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Arrowood

under the 1970 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.168. Arrowood wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 167.

169. Arrowoods wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes


170. Travelers has been damaged by Arrowoods breach of the 1970 Facultative


COUNT SEVENTEEN Contract Breach Against Cincinnati 1970 FacultativeCertificate




and Cincinnati.



174. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Cincinnati



22/31

-22-


175. Cincinnati wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 174.

176. Cincinnatis wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes


177. Travelers has been damaged by Cincinnatis breach of the 1970 Facultative

Certificate, in an amount not less than $904.95.

COUNT EIGHTEEN Contract Breach Against CCC 1970 Facultative Certificate



and CCC.



181. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to CCC under the


182. CCC wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph

181.

183. CCCs wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a


184. Travelers has been damaged by CCCs breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate,




23/31

-23-

COUNT NINETEEN Contract Breach Against CIC 1970 Facultative Certificate




and CIC.



188. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to CIC under the

1970 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.189. CIC wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph 188.

190. CICs wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a


191. Travelers has been damaged by CICs breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate,


COUNT TWENTY Contract Breach Against Wausau 1970 Facultative Certificate




and Wausau.



195. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Wausau under




24/31

-24-

196. Wausau wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph

195.

197. Wausaus wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a


198. Travelers has been damaged by Wausaus breach of the 1970 Facultative


COUNT TWENTY-ONE Contract Breach Against Factory Mutual 1970 FacultativeCertificate




and Factory Mutual.



202. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Factory Mutual


203. Factory Mutual wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 202.

204. Factory Mutuals wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim


205. Travelers has been damaged by Factory Mutuals breach of the 1970 Facultative


COUNT TWENTY-TWO Contract Breach Against Hanover 1970 FacultativeCertificate




25/31

-25-



and Hanover.



209. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Hanover under


210. Hanover wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph

209.211. Hanovers wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a


212. Travelers has been damaged by Hanovers breach of the 1970 Facultative


COUNT TWENTY-THREE Contract Breach Against INA 1970 Facultative Certificate




and INA.



216. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to INA under the


217. INA wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph 216.



26/31

-26-

218. INAs wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a


219. Travelers has been damaged by INAs breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate,


COUNT TWENTY-FOUR Contract Breach Against Liberty Mutual 1970 FacultativeCertificate




and Liberty Mutual.



223. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Liberty Mutual


224. Liberty Mutual wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 223.

225. Liberty Mutuals wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim


226. Travelers has been damaged by Liberty Mutuals breach of the 1970 Facultative


COUNT TWENTY-FIVE Contract Breach Against Merrimack 1970 FacultativeCertificate






27/31

-27-

and Merrimack.



230. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Merrimack


231. Merrimack wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 230.

232. Merrimacks wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim

constitutes a breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.233. Travelers has been damaged by Merrimacks breach of the 1970 Facultative


COUNT TWENTY-SIX Contract Breach Against NICO 1970 Facultative Certificate




and NICO.



237. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to NICO under the


238. NICO wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph

237.

239. NICOs wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a



28/31

-28-


240. Travelers has been damaged by NICOs breach of the 1970 Facultative

Certificate, in an amount not less than $904.95.

COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN Contract Breach Against OneBeacon America 1970Facultative Certificate




and OneBeacon America.




America under the 1970 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.

245. OneBeacon America wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced

in Paragraph 244.

246. OneBeacon Americas wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim


247. Travelers has been damaged by OneBeacon Americas breach of the 1970

Facultative Certificate, in an amount not less than $12,198.71.

COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT Contract Breach Against OneBeacon 1970 FacultativeCertificate




and OneBeacon.



29/31

-29-





252. OneBeacon wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 251.

253. OneBeacons wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim


254. Travelers has been damaged by OneBeacons breach of the 1970 FacultativeCertificate, in an amount not less than $1,354.60.

COUNT TWENTY-NINE Contract Breach Against Public Service 1970 FacultativeCertificate




and Public Service.



258. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Public Service


259. Public Service wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 258.

260. Public Services wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim




30/31

-30-

261. Travelers has been damaged by Public Services breach of the 1970 Facultative


COUNT THIRTY Contract Breach Against U.S. Fire 1970 Facultative Certificate




and U.S. Fire.


Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.265. Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to U.S. Fire under


266. U.S. Fire wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph

265.

267. U.S. Fires wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes


268. Travelers has been damaged by U.S. Fires breach of the 1970 Facultative


V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the plaintiff, The Travelers Indemnity Company, respectfully prays for:

1. An award of money damages;

2. An award of pre-judgment interest;

3. An award of post-judgment interest;

4. The taxable costs of this action; and



31/31

5. Such other relief as the Court may see fit to award.

Plaintiff,

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITYCOMPANY,

By:

___/s/ Thomas O. Farrish_______________Thomas O. Farrish (ct26917)[email protected] H. Nissim (ct29501)[email protected] Day Pitney LLP

242 Trumbull St.Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499(860) 275-0100(860) 275-0343 (fax)Its Attorneys


travelers indemnity co. v. ace property & casualty insurance company et al complaint

Documents