Case 1:07-cv-06912 Document 152 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 1 of 8

Similar documents
Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/21/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1

Case 3:10-cv SRU Document 1 Filed 12/10/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

* Each Will Comply With LR IA 10 2 Within 45 days Attorneys for Plaintiff, Goldman, Sachs & Co.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

TERRENCE and Marie Domin, Plaintiffs, v. SHELBY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant.

Case 1:05-cv JGK Document 1 Filed 04/04/05 Page 1 of 6. Plaintiff, : Civ. No. 05cv3493

Case 1:12-cv WJM-KMT Document 1 Filed 12/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION

Case Doc 40 Filed 03/31/16 Entered 03/31/16 13:02:57 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2014 INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2014

Case 2:15-cv SHL-dkv Document 1 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Case 1:05-cv Document 73 Filed 07/10/2006 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:10-cv Document 1 Filed 05/24/10 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT S ANSWER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT THE PARTIES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Case 2:10-cv JCM-LRL Document 1 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 8

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 137 Filed: 07/29/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1365

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1

Case: 1:09-cv Document #: 48 Filed: 10/08/09 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:<pageid>

Case 2:15-cv DDP-AGR Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 55 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:411

No. Plaintiff Kelvin Bledsoe ( Plaintiff ), by his undersigned counsel, brings claims

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

AMANDA K. HORTON; and KEITH ALSTRIN, No. CV PHX DGC. Plaintiffs, AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 1:07-cv B Document 7 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

Case Doc 1 Filed 04/07/15 Entered 04/07/15 11:42:31 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 13

Case 1:11-cv AKH Document 1 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 8 SPRINT UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff, Defendant.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. Plaintiffs, C. A. NO. VS.

Case 2:14-cv CW-BCW Document 62 Filed 10/20/14 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

Case 2:07-cv LED Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 5

Attorneys for Maricopa County Community College District Board IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case3:13-cv JST Document27 Filed11/27/13 Page1 of 14

Plaintiffs, -against- The Plaintiffs, by their attorney, Leon Greenberg P.C., as and for a Complaint against the defendants, state and allege,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE No. 09-CV JCC

Plaintiff Carol Parker ( Plaintiff ), residing at 32 Coleman Way, Jackson, NJ 08527, by her undersigned counsel, alleges the following upon personal

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

JOHN MURRAY ( Murray ), for his Complaint in this action against Defendant, Crystex Composites LLC ( Crystex ), alleges as follows:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

Case 1:11-cv SM Document 16 Filed 12/16/11 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Plaintiffs, -against- IAS Part 5 Justice Kathryn E. Freed. WHEREAS Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT CHANCERY DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (the Agreement ) is entered into by the States

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : :

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-cv-2922 COMPLAINT

Case 1:14-cv WGY Document 1 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. ) IATRIC SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:14-cv ) v. ) ) FAIRWARNING, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Case 2:10-cv NBF Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Henkel Corp v. Hartford Accident

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LYNCHBURG (CHARLOTTESVILLE) DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. v.

COMPLAINT IN INTERPLEADER ON LIFE INSURANCE POLICY

Broadband Graphics - infringement of Patent Law and Procedure

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE RECITALS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Complaint

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JEANNETTE CLARK, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff,

Case 2:14-cv AJS Document 1 Filed 08/22/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 6:15-cv Document 1 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:10-cv DRD Document 31 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9

APPENDIX A IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Case 2:14-cv JS-ARL Document 1 Filed 10/28/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 131. : : - against - : : : Defendant.

Case 6:16-cv Document 1 Filed 02/23/16 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Case 4:08-cv RP-CFB Document 245 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 10

4:15-cv RBH Date Filed 01/29/15 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10

Case 1:12-cv RPM Document 1 Filed 04/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 3:08-cv JAP-JJH Document 1 Filed 02/20/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

ABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, f/k/a MEDICO LIFE INSURANCE

Case 1:10-cv WGY Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORIGIA-~~T ~:J,-~T,>cURT SAVANNAH DIVISION j Ga. NATURE OF THE ACTION

Transcription:

Case 1:07-cv-06912 Document 152 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY and ) CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. 07-6912 v. ) ) COMMERCIAL RISK RE-INSURANCE COMPANY, ) Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber COMMERCIAL RISK REINSURANCE COMPANY ) LIMITED, GENERAL SECURITY INDEMNITY ) Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys COMPANY OF ARIZONA, GENERAL SECURITY ) NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GIE ) COLUMBUS, SCOR, and SCOR REINSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendants. ) ) AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company (collectively, Plaintiffs or CNA ) state the following for their Amended Complaint against defendants, Commercial Risk Re-Insurance Company, Commercial Reinsurance Company Limited, General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona, General Security National Insurance Company, GIE Columbus, SCOR and SCOR Reinsurance Company (collectively, Defendants or the SCOR Companies ). NATURE OF ACTION 1. This is a declaratory judgment action brought by Plaintiffs against Defendants, seeking a declaration concerning the scope of a Commutation & Release Agreement entered into in 2006.

Case 1:07-cv-06912 Document 152 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 2 of 8 THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Continental Casualty Company ( CCC ) is an insurance company organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its principal place of business in Illinois. 3. Plaintiff Continental Insurance Company ( CIC ) is an insurance company organized under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business in Illinois. 4. Defendant Commercial Risk Re-Insurance Company ( CRRC ) is an insurance company organized under the laws of Vermont. On information and belief, its principal place of business is in New York. 5. Defendant Commercial Risk Reinsurance Company Limited ( CRRC Ltd. ) is an insurance company organized under the laws of Bermuda, with its principal place of business in Bermuda. 6. Defendant General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona ( General Indemnity ) is an insurance company organized under the laws of Arizona, with its principal place of business in New York. 7. Defendant General Security National Insurance Company ( General National ) is an insurance company organized under the laws of New York, with its principal place of business in New York. 8. On information and belief, defendant GIE Columbus is an insurance company organized under the laws of France, with its principal place of business in France. 9. Defendant SCOR is an insurance company organized under the laws of France, with its principal place of business in France. 10. Defendant SCOR Reinsurance Company is an insurance company organized under the laws of New York, with its principal place of business in New York. 2

Case 1:07-cv-06912 Document 152 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 3 of 8 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, because Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of different States and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 12. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391. BACKGROUND Reinsurance 13. Under a reinsurance contract, one insurance company, known as the ceding company or the cedent, purchases insurance from another professional insurer, known as the reinsurer, in order to transfer some or all of the insured risk the cedent has assumed under its direct policies. In this case, Plaintiffs were the ceding companies and Defendants were the reinsurers. 14. In reinsurance parlance, a commutation is an agreement whereby existing reinsurance contracts are bought back and terminated. Under the typical commutation agreement, the reinsurer pays the cedent a negotiated amount, in exchange for the cedent s agreement that particular reinsurance contracts are terminated, such that the reinsurer will have no further liability to the cedent under those reinsurance contracts. The Commutation Agreement Negotiated by CNA and the SCOR Companies 15. In December 2006, CNA and the SCOR Companies entered into a Commutation Agreement & Release (the Commutation Agreement ). A copy of the Commutation Agreement & Release is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 3

Case 1:07-cv-06912 Document 152 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 4 of 8 16. The Commutation Agreement covered Reinsurance Agreements, which was defined in part as reinsurance agreements or contracts of reinsurance between the Parties, known or unknown, under which REINSURER assumes losses ceded by CNA to REINSURER. (Ex. 1 at 3.) at 3.) 17. Parties was defined as CNA and REINSURER, collectively. (Ex. 1 18. CNA was defined as CCC and CIC and their direct or indirect insurance subsidiaries, excluding certain specfically identified companies. (Ex. 1 at 2) (Ex. 1 at 3.) 19. REINSURER was defined as: SCOR Reinsurance Company, General Security National Insurance Company (f/k/a Sorema North America Reinsurance Company); General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona; Commercial Risk Re-Insurance Company, Commercial Risk Reinsurance Company Limited, GIE COLUMBUS, SCOR, Paris, France, including any of its direct or indirect non-life insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries and affiliates, including but not limited to SCOR Global P&C, but excluding Anglo-French Insurance Company, LTD., SAI-SOCIETA ASSICURATRICE INDUSTRIALE, (UK) and any of their subsidiaries. 20. The Commutation Agreement contains a merger and integration clause. Specifically, paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 7 of the Commutation Agreement provide that: This Commutation & Release Agreement shall constitute the final, complete and entire agreement between the parties as respects its subject matter, and supersedes and replaces any prior oral or written understandings of the Parties. This Commutation & Release Agreement may not be amended except by written amendment executed by each of the Parties. * * * This Commutation & Release Agreement supersedes any and all other negotiations, discussions, promises, commitments, agreements and understandings, whether oral or written, express or implied, or made 4

Case 1:07-cv-06912 Document 152 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 5 of 8 (Ex. 1 at 11.) before or contemporaneous with the execution of this Commutation & Release Agreement, between the parties with respect to the subject matter[.] All such negotiations, discussions, promises, commitments, agreements, and understandings are deemed terminated or otherwise extinguished. 21. The Commutation Agreement was executed on behalf of all parties by December 28, 2006. (Ex. 1 at 15-16.) The Allstate Re Contracts and the Unity Fire Contracts 22. At various times, CNA purchased reinsurance contracts from Allstate Insurance Company and/or its affiliates (collectively, Allstate ) under which CNA ceded, and Allstate assumed, certain reinsurance business (the Allstate Re Contracts ). 23. The Allstate Re Contracts were issued by Allstate. 24. CNA has not agreed to any novation whereby any of the SCOR Companies replaced Allstate under the Allstate Re Contracts. 25. At various times, CNA purchased reinsurance contracts from Unity Fire and General Insurance Company, now known as Unitrin Preferred Insurance Company ( Unity Fire ) under which CNA ceded, and Unity Fire assumed, certain reinsurance business (the Unity Fire Contracts. ) 26. The Unity Fire Contracts were issued by Unity Fire. 27. CNA has not agreed to any novation whereby any of the SCOR Companies replaced Unity Fire under the Unity Fire Contracts. 5

Case 1:07-cv-06912 Document 152 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 6 of 8 The Present Dispute 28. On its face, the Commutation Agreement does not apply to the Allstate Re Contracts or the Unity Fire Contracts. 29. The Commutation Agreement is limited to reinsurance contracts under which REINSURER assumes losses ceded by CNA. 30. The terms REINSURER and CNA are plain and unambiguous. 31. Neither Allstate nor Unity Fire falls within the definitions of REINSURER or CNA under in the Commutation Agreement: (a) Neither Allstate nor Unity Fire was a direct or indirect subsidiary or affiliate of the SCOR Companies as of the execution date of the Commutation Agreement. (b) Neither Allstate nor Unity Fire was a direct or indirect subsidiary or affiliate of CNA as of the execution date of the Commutation Agreement. 32. Neither Allstate nor Unity Fire was a signatory to the Commutation Agreement. 33. Neither Allstate nor Unity Fire was a party to the Commutation Agreement. 34. Nevertheless, over the past 11 months, the SCOR Companies have claimed to owe certain responsibilities under the Allstate Re Contracts and the Unity Fire Contracts, and assert that those responsibilities were extinguished by the Commutation Agreement. Specifically, the SCOR Companies claim that the Allstate Re Contracts and the Unity Fire Contracts were terminated by the Commutation Agreement. 35. As a result, over $1.7 million billed by CNA under the Allstate Re Contracts and/or the Unity Fire Contracts has gone unpaid. 6

Case 1:07-cv-06912 Document 152 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 7 of 8 36. Under Paragraph 8 of the Commutation Agreement, the Parties agreed to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in the State of Illinois any dispute arising under or relating to the Commutation Agreement. Paragraph 8 also provides that Illinois law shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of the Commutation Agreement. COUNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 37. CCC and CIC restate and reallege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-36 above, as if set out in full herein. 38. CCC and CIC contend that the Commutation Agreement does not apply to reinsurance contracts issued by Allstate Re, or by Unity Fire, or by any companies other than those identified as REINSURER under the Commutation Agreement. 39. The SCOR Companies dispute the position of CCC and CIC described in Paragraph 38 above. 40. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), an actual controversy exists between CCC and CIC, on the one hand, and the SCOR Companies, on the other hand, respecting the scope of the Commutation Agreement. 7

Case 1:07-cv-06912 Document 152 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 8 of 8 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants, awarding: (a) A declaration that the Commutation Agreement does not apply to reinsurance contracts issued by Allstate, Unity Fire or any companies other than those identified as REINSURER under the Commutation Agreement; and (b) Such other relief as the Court deems just, including any further relief authorized under 28 U.S.C. 2201(a). Dated: May 13, 2009 By: /s/ Serena B. Lee Serena B. Lee William M. Sneed Thomas D. Cunningham Serena B. Lee SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 312-853-7000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company CH1 4693147v.1 8