ACE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY et al Complaint

7/30/2019 ACE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY et al Compl

1/13


2/13

l5r6t7l819202l222324252627

I2aJ

456789

l0l1t213I4

2' This Courthaspersonalurisdiction overDefendantONEBEACONAMERICA INSURANCE coMpANy ("oneBeacon,,) because neBeaconhasmadeor established onstitutionally ufficientcontactsn this udicial districtandelsewheren theState f california o permit his court,s exercise f personaljurisdiction andOneBeacon onductsand./orransacts usinesswithin this udiciadistrict,andhassufficientcontactswithin this udicial districtby virtue of itsdealingswith ACE asset orth below,andelsewheren the stateof california topermit hiscourt's exercise f personalurisdiction.3' venue s proper n this udicial districtpursuanto 2g u.s.c. $ l391(and(c) because substantial art of the actscomplainedof hereinoccurredn thisjudicial district and/oreachparty s subject o personalurisdiction in this udicialdistrict.

PARTIES4' PlaintiffACE is a Pennsylvaniaorporationwith a principalplaceofbusinessn Philadelphia, ennsylvania. t al l relevant imesherein, laintiff ACE

wasand s duly authorizedo transactnsurance usinessn the Countyof LosAngelesandStateof California.5' Plaintiff ACE is informedandbelieves hatDefendantoneBeacon s aMassachusettsorporationwith a principalplaceof businessn Boston,Massachusetts. t all timesrelevantherein,DefendantoneBeaconwasand sauthorizedo transactnsurance usinessn the Stateof california.6' The truenamesandcapacities,whether ndividual,corporate, ssociaor otherwise,of DefendantDoes 7-20,inclusive,areunknown o plaintiff at thistime' andPlaintiff thereforesuessaidDefendants y such ictitiousnames,andwillask eaveof courtto amend his complaint to show heir truenamesandcapacitieswhenthe identitieshavebeenascertained. laintiff is further nformedandbelievesand hereonalleges hateachof the fictitiouslynamedDefendantswasand sFoREeu rABLEs rBRbGXirbfA"Nib"iliiffi'rii.d

28

Case 8:13-cv-00797-CJC-AJW Document 1 Filed 05/21/13 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:2


3/13

I2aJ

456789

l0t1t213t4l5t6T718I9202T22Z J2425262728

legally responsibleo Plaintiff in somemanner n connectionwith the mattershereinafter lleged.

FACTS7. At all relevant imesherein,Nederlander-Greek,nc. (hereinafter

"Nederlander")was he mutual nsuredof Plaintiff ACE and DefendantOneBeacon, ndwascoveredunderprimaryandexcessiability policiesofinsurancessuedby OneBeacon nd ACE,, espectively,as more particularlyidentifiedhereinafter.

8' As morefully set orth below,ACE, as excess arrier or Nederlandis subrogatedo Nederlander'sightsagainstOneBeacon,or OneBeacon's reacof the impliedcovenantof goodfaith and air dealing,arisingout of OneBeaconunreasonableailureand refusal o settlean underlyingpersonalnjury actionagainstNederlander ithin its $1 million policy limits. As a resultof OneBeacounreasonableailureand refusal o settle he casewithin its policy limits, includinOneBeacon's nreasonableefusal o accept he claimant'spolicy limits demandreasonably xpected xcess erdict n the otalamountof $3,236,455.31 asrendered gainstNederlander,esulting n a net udgmentagainstOneBeacon'sinsuredn theamountof $2,346,430.09.

THE POLTCIES9. Plaintiff ACE is informedandbelievesand hereonallegeshat

DefendantOneBeaconssueda primarygeneral iability insurance olicy,policynumberGL00696-00,or rheperiodApril 13,2009 hroughApril 13,2010,withlimits of liability for bodily injury of $1million peroccurrence ndnamingNederlanders an nsured the"oneBeaconpolicy"). TheoneBeacon olicypromisedandrepresented,nter alia, to Nederlander,hat:

10. The imits of liability for bodily injury are$1 million perocctllrence

FOREQUITABLE SUBROGATION AND RETME RSPIT'IENT



4/13

I2-tJ

456789

10l lt2t3t415I6l7l8t9202T22L J2425262728

(a) OneBeacongreedo indemnifuNederlanderp o theaforesaidlimits,andagainsthose ums t wouldbecomeegallyobligatedo payasdamafor bodily njuryduring heoneBeacon olicyperiodandcausedy an"occurrencet';(b) OneBeacon ad a duty to defend,at its soleexpense, ny suitagainsanyNederlandernsuredseekingcovereddamages n accountof bodily injury;

(") Nederlander's perations t various ocationswerecovered or suchbodily injury liability including he GreekTheatre n Los Angeles,California;an

(d) In any awsuitwhich it wasdefending,OneBeacon greedo pay allpre-appeal osts axedagainstNederlander nder he supplementary aymentsprovisionof theOneBeacon olicy.

1 . PlaintiffACE is informedandbelieveshatat all relevant imesherea duty to act fairly and n goodfaith in handling hird-partyclaims s implied in thOneBeacon olicy. OneBeaconwastherefore equired o act fairly and n goodfaith in dischargingts contractual bligations, ncluding,amongother hings, oobjectivelyandreasonablynvestigate ny third-partyclaim againstts insureds,properlyevaluateiability anddamages onnectedwith any third-partyclaim andeffectuate easonableettlements f the third-partyclaims,when iability isreasonably lear, ncluding he duty to acceptsettlement emandswithin its policylimits whena verdict s likely to be n excess f thepolicy limits.

12. Plaintiff ACE, ssued commercial mbrellapolicy of liabilityinsuranceearing olicynumberM00532939,or theperiodApril 13,2009 oApril 13,2010,andnamingNederlandersan nsured the ,ACEpolicy"). TheACE policy provided, nter alia, that:

(a) The limits of liability for bodily injury are$25million for eachoccurrence nd n the aggregate, xcess f the scheduled nderlyingOneBeaconprimarypolicy;

(b) ACE agreed o pay,subject o its limits of liability, covered-4-FOR EQLIITABLE SUBROGATION AND RET-ViEURSBMENT^_' ^



5/13

I2J

456789

1011t213T415T6t718I9202l22232425262728

damageshatNederlander ecame egally obligated o paywhich are n excess fall scheduled nderlying nsurance, rovided hat no liability would attachunlessanduntil all suchunderlying nsurance adbeenexhausted y payments fsettlements r udgmentson losses overedundersuchpolicy;(c) The ACE policy covered,n pertinentpart,bodily injury whichoccurredduring ts policy periodandwascaused y an occurrence;

(d) Nederlander's perations t various ocationswerecovered orsuchbodily injury liability includingthe GreekTheatre n Los Angeles,California

(e) The ACE policy hadno affirmativeduty to defendNederlandor pay for defense ostswhereunderlying nsurance,ncluding he OneBeaconpolicy,hadsucha defense bligation;and

(0 Nederlander's ights o recoveragainstotherparties or anypaymentsACE madeunder he policy are fansferredo ACE.

THE HERRON ACTION13. PlaintiffACE is informedandbelieves haton or aboutSeptember ,

2009,within the policy periodof OneBeacon olicy, DeniseHerron("Herron") waat the insured'spremisesat theGreek Theatre n Los Angeles,California,whenshwas njuredallegedlyasa resultof Nederlander's egligence.

14. Plaintiff ACE is fuither informedandbelieves hatas a resultof theinsured'snegligence, lerronsustained eriousandpermanentnjuries, ncludingbut not limited to, a compound ractureof her right ankle,which resultedn theneed or severalsurgeries,which never ully resolvedhercondition.15. PlaintiffACE is informedandbelieveshatasa resultof the fall,Herronfiled a personalnjury actionon April 20,2010,entitle ,Herron v.Nederlander-Greek, t al., Los AngelesCountySuperiorCourt,CaseNo.8C436191(the"Herron Action"). In herComplaint,Herronallegedcauses factionfor generalnegligence, remisesiability andbreachof mandatoryduty,

F'OREQUTABLE SUBROGATION ND REIMBURSEMENT



6/13

I2-lJ

456789

l0l lt2l3l4l5t6I718t9202I22232425262728

contending herewas an unreasonableisk of harm createdby Nederlander n thathe premisesweremaintainedn an unsafeandunreasonably angerous onditionHerronclaimedeconomic amagesrom $500,000o $g,000,000.Herron'smedicalexpertopined hat as a resultof her injuries,Herron'sbonesmight not fuandshecould possibly equireamputationof her leg above he right ankleandbelow theknee- Herron'seconomistexpertopined hather future ossof eamingwouldbebetween 900,000 nd$3.4million.

16. Upon informationandbelief,NederlanderenderedheHerronActioto DefendantOneBeacon nder he primarypolicy. DefendantOneBeacon ccepthe tenderof the defense nd assigned ounsel o defendNederlander.DefendantOneBeaconwasobligated o properlyand horoughly nvestigateheHerronActioand perforrnan accurate ssessmentf liability anddamages, ndbasedhereonwasrequired o accepta reasonable ettlement emandwithin its policy limits.

ONEB N'S SONABLEFAILURE DRE

17. The evidencen theHerron Actionoverwhelminglydemonstratedhatherewasa substantialikelihoodof recovery n excess f the OneBeacon olicylimits. Herron's njurieswereseriousand permanent,Herronpresented conomicdamageshat rangedrom S500,000o $g,000,000, ndal l medicalexperts,including he insured'sown medicalexperts,agreed hatHerron's njuriesmayrequireamputationof Herron's right leg,above he ankleandbelow theknee.Thetestimonyby other ay witnesses,ncludingNederlander'swn employees,evidencedhat therewas a substantialikelihoodof recovery n excess f theOneBeacon olicy limits if thecasewere o go to trial. Thus,a verdict n excessthe $1 million policy imits of theOneBeacon olicywassubstantiallyikely, andwasor shouldhavebeenapparento OneBeacon,n light of Herron's njuriesandthe probableiability of Nederlander. -6 -

FOR EQUI TABL E SUBROGATION AND-NBIViEURSPH,T-E^NT



7/13

I2aJ

456789

r0l lI213T415t6t718I9202l22232425262728

18. Prior to trial, Herron presentedo OneBeacon n opportunity orOneBeacono settle heHerron Action or the $l million policy limits. OnFebruary25,2011,a! a mandatorysettlement onference, policy limits demandwasmadeby Herron n the underlyingaction.Notwithstandinghat therewasasubstantialisk of an excess erdict,OneBeacon nreasonablyefused o acceptasettlement ffer within thepolicy limits. OneBeaconefused o settle or the $lmillion policy limits even houghOneBeaconwasurged o seffleby its insuredNederlander nd ts own defense ounsel,wasadvisedby the trial judge actingassettlementudge that the reasonable ettlement aluewas n excess f OneBeacopolicy limits, andwas furtherwamedby the settlementudge that he reasonablelikely verdictagainstNederlander aswell in excess f OneBeacon's olicy limitUndersuchcircumstances, reasonablensurerwould haveaccepted policy limidemand.Notwithstandinghat he objectively easonable valuations y defensecounseland he settlementudge all indicated hat he likely anticipated erdictwain excess f the limits of the OneBeacon olicy, OneBeacon nreasonablyefuseto settlewithin its policy limits.

19. Further,during trial, as evidencewas presented nd rulingswere madthat increasedhe alreadysubstantialikelihoodof an excess erdict,OneBeaconfailedto settleor evenattempt o settlewithin its policy limits, despitewrittennoticeanddemandsrom ACE.As a resultof OneBeacon's nreasonableailureand refusal o settle or its policy limits, the ury returneda reasonably xpectedexcess erdict, n the otalamountof $3,236,455.31.fter deductionsorcomparative egligence,udgmentwasentered n March 28, z0ll againstNederlandern theamountof $2,346,430.09, hichwas$l ,346,430.09n excesstheOneBeacon olicy limits.

20. Thereafter,OneBeaconailedand refused o direct, equireor fund anappealof the verdict,despitenoticeanddemandsor same rom ACE, and nsteadonly tenderedts policy limits of $1 million towardsatisfaction f theverdict

FOREQUITABLESTJBROGATIONND REIMBURSEMENT



8/13

I23456789

l0t1T213t4l5T6t7l8l9202l22232425262728

amount.21. As Plaintiff ACE is Nederlander'sexcess arrier,ACE paidtheporti

of theverdictwhich was n excess f the OneBeacon olicy limits, in the amount$1,346,430.09.y reason f ACE's paymentof the excessudgment,ACE issubrogatedo Nederlander'sightsagainstOneBeaconor OneBeacon's reachothe impliedcovenantof goodfaith andfair dealing or unreasonablyefusing osettlewithin its policy limits. ACE hereinseeks rom OneBeacon ll amountspaiby ACE in excess f OneBeacon's 1 million policy limits, plus nterest ndcost

22. Any paymentsby ACE wereandareandsubject o a reservation fACE's rightsto seek eimbursementrom DefendantOneBeacon f all or a portioof thepayments. FIRST CAIN SUBROG

23. Plaintiff ACE re-alleges nd ncorporates ereinby referenceheallegations f paragraphs-21, inclusive,of this compraint.

24. Pursuanto the terms,conditionsand mplied obligationsof its primapolicy of insurance,ncluding he implied covenantof goodfaith and air dealingwasOneBeacon's uty to, amongother hings,properlymanageandoverseeheHerron Action; properlyand horoughly nvestigateHerron'sclaim againstNederlander; roperlyconductsettlement egotiations, nd, with respecthereto,settlewithin theOneBeacon olicy limits if possible; roperlyandaccuratelyevaluatehe issuesof damages nd iability in theHerron Action; properlyandaccurately ppriseNederlander nd excessnsurers,ncludingPlaintiff ACE, ofHerron'ssettlement emands ndnegotiationsn connectionherewith;andproperly and accuratelyevaluatesettlementand settle theHerroreAction wheretherewasa substantialikelihoodof a udgment for morethanOneBeacon's olicylimits.

25. DefendantOneBeacon reachedts obligationsanddutiesunder heFOR EQUITABL E SUBROGATION AND_RE -VGUNSPI\dNT



9/13

I2aJ

456789

l01lt213l415t6I7t8t9202l22232425262728

termsandconditionsof its primarypolicy of insurance y failing to do all of theaforementionedn paragraph20,above,amongother hings.26' As the sole,directand proximate esultof OneBeacon'sailureto

fulfill its contractualand mplied obligations o Nederlander spreviouslyallegeOneBeacon nreasonablyailedandrefused o settleor evenattempt o settle hecaseat the imits of its primarypolicy, althoughHerronmadea policy limitsdemand o settle heHerron Action,althoughevidencepresented ndrulingsmadduring rial increasedhe alreadysubstantialikelihoodof an excess erdictandalthoughACE demanded ucha settlement y oneBeacon Despite he evidencethatwould have ed a reasonablensurer o conclude hat the reasonableettlemevalueof the casewasmorethan$l million, and hata likely reasonableerdictwawell in excess f $l million, OneBeacon nreasonablyailed o accept he policylimits demandandfailed andrefused o settleor evenartempt o settleat the limitsof ofthe policy.As a direct esultof its breach f the mpliedcovenant f goodfaith and air dealing,OneBeacon ascausedharmanddamageo Nederlander yallowinga udgment n excess f the OneBeacon olicy limits to be renderedagainstNederlander.

27. Under he principlesof equitablesubrogation, swell as hecontractual ubrogation rovision n theACE policy, Plaintiff ACE standsn theshoesof its insuredand s subrogatedo Nederlander's ightsunder he OneBeacoprimarypolicy and husACE has he right to assertanyandall rights hatNederlander as hereunder gainstOneBeacon,ncluding,without limitation,theright of recoveryagainstOneBeaconor breachof its contractualand goodfaithobligations o Nederlandern the underlying Herron Action. Accordingly,ACE, asthesubrogee f Nederlander,s entitled o recover rom OneBeacon ll amountspaid n excess f the available imits of the OneBeacon olicy, alongwith anypre-judgment nterest hereonandcosts.

28. The damagesncurredby Nederlander, ndpaid by plaintiff ACE,FOREQUITABLESUBROGATTbUA-ND-ffiIIVfBURSEMENT



10/13

I2aJ

456789

1011T213t41516I7l8T9202I22232425262728

would havebeenavoided f DefendantOneBeacon adproperlyand reasonablyfulfilled its obligationsunder he covenantof goodfaith and air dealing o settlethe casewithin thepolicy limits. It is thus nequitableand unjust or ACE, and notOneBeacon,o suffersaid harmanddamages.

29. Plaintiff ACE hasdemandedhat DefendantOneBeacon ay allamountsACE paid in excessof the available imits of the OneBeacon olicy, alonwith anypre-judgmentnterest hereonandcosts.DefendantOneBeacon as aileand refused o pay any of saidsums o ACE.

PRAYERWFIEREFORE,Plaintiff ACE prays or judgment,as ollows:l. For compensatoryamagesn a minimumamountof 51,346,430.09

for all amountspaid or incurredby ACE as a resultof the excess erdict;2. For pre-judgmentntereston the foregoingsumat the egalrate;3. For costsof suit ncurredherein;and4. For suchother andfurther relief as he Court deemsust andproper.

Dated: May 20,2013 NIXON PEABODY LLP

INSURANCECOMPANY

_10_FOREQUITABLE SUBROGATIONAND REIMBURSEMENT



11/13

UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOTICEOF ASSIGNMENT O TJNITED TATESMAGISTRATEJT]DGE OR DISCOVERYThiscase asbeenassignedo District JudgeCormac . Carneyand heassigneddiscoveryMagistrate udge s AndrewJ. Wistrich.

Thecase umberon all documentsiled with the Courtshould eadas ollows:SACV13 - 7 97 CiIe (A,rVIx)

Pursuanto GeneralOrder05-07of the United StatesDistrict Court or the CentralDistrictof California, he Magistrate udge asbeendesignatedo heardiscoveryelatedmotions.

All discovery elatedmotionsshouldbe noticedon the calendar f the Magistrate udge

NOTICE OCOUNSELA copyof thisnoticemustbe servedwith he summons ndcomplaint n all defendantsifa removal ction sfiled,a copyof thisnoticemustbe serued n allplaintiffs).Subsequentocuments ustbe iledat he ollowingocation:I I WesternDivision -J.fSouthern Division I I EasternDivision312N. SpringSt.,Rm .G- 8 41 1WestFourthSt.,Rm.1-053 3470TwelfthSt.,Rm.134Los Angeles,CA 90012 SantaAna,CA 92701-4516 Riverside,CA 92501

Failure o file at the proper ocationwill result n yourdocumentsbeing eturned o you.

cv-18(03/06) NOTTCE FASSTGNMENTOUNTTEDTATESMAGISTRATEUDGE ORDTSCOVERY



12/13

l. (a ) PLAINTIFFS( Check ox f yo uar e epresentingACEPROPERTYCASUALTYNSURANCEOMPANY

FENDANTS (Check ox f youare epresent ingourse l ftrrONEBEACONMERICANSURANCEOMpANy, corporat ion

(b)At torneysFi rm ame, ddressndTelephone umber .f youare epresentlngourself , rovide am e

CITIZENSHIP F PRINCIPAL ARTIES-Forivers i t vases ntv(P lacenX n onebox orp la in t i f f ndone ordefendSnt )tJt , oJ t r Incorporatedr Principal lace o,{ 'o f Bu s :n e s sn h i )S ta te u

UNITED TATES ISTRlCTOURT, ENTRALISTRICTFCALIFORNIACIVIL OVER HEETyoursel ff )a corporat lon

(b)A t torneysFi rm ame, ddressndTelephone umber fyouare epresent ingourse l f ,rov ide ame, )NixonPeabodyLL POne EmbarcaderoCenter,Su i te1g0OSan Francrsco, A 94 111l l . BASISOF JUR|SDICTIONptacen X n oneboxonty , )f T.U S.GovernmenrPlaint if fT--. , .U.5.Governmentu Defendant

[ 3 Federa l ues t ionU5Government ot a Party)

E 4 Divers i t ylnd icate i t izensh ipof Par t iesn tem l t )i t i z e n o fAn o th e rs ta te f ] 2 [ 2 In c o rp o ra te d a n d p r in c ip a lp la c eof Businessn AnotherSta te

I 3 n 3 F o r e i g n N a r i o nra n S

4 Re insta ted rRe o ened

n Distr ic t Speci fy)

i t i z e n fTh is ta te

Cit izen r Subject f aForergn ountry

DEF4 a ) 4l J . l ) lr lx 6 [ 6

l V .ORI G I NP lacen;7 I Orig inal T-1Proceeding u

X noneboxonly. )2 Removed ro m T- 1Sta teCourt L, 3 RemandedromAppellate ourt I

V. REQUESTEDN cOMPLA|NT: URyDEMAND: I yesCLA55 CTION nderF.R.Cv.p.23: I yes E Notr No (CheckYes" nly fdemandedncomplaint . )

E MONEY EMANDEDN COMPLAINT. 1,346,430.09

Vl l .NATURE FSUIT place nX noneboxontvl .5 CONTRACT REAL PROPERTYCONT IMMIGRATION PRISONERETITIONS TYRIGHTS3 7 5 Fa ls e la ims c t

400 StateReapport ionment4 10 An t i t r u s t43 0 Banks nd Banking45 0 Commerce/lCCRates/Etc46 0 Deportation47 0 Racketeernf lu-enced& CorruptOr g48 0 Consumer redit49 0 Cable/Sat850 Secunties/Com-modit ies/Exchage89 0 OtherStatutoryActions8 9 1 Ag r i c u l tu ra lc t s893 EnvironmentalMatters89 5 Freedom f n foAc t896 Arbitrat ion899 Admin ProceduresAct/Review fAppealofAgencyDecis ion95 0 Consti tut ionalr tyfSta te tatutes

ftrTn!ln!nrTf,trtruI!

L l I t u t n s u r a n c e[ 1 2 0 Ma r in e[ 1 3 0M r l l e r c ta- , t +ONegotiableu Instrument

150 Recovery f1'-1Overpayment&bntorcement tJ u d g me n tD '151Medicare ct

l 5 2 R e c o v e r y o ff l Defaulted tudentLoan ExclVe t153 Recovery fI OverpaymentofVet Benefits

F 16 0Stockholders 'u S u i t sff l 19 0OtherLO n ractr--l 195Contract! Product iabi l i tyI i l y b F r a n a h i S e

J 24O orts o Landa 2a5TortProductLi a i l i tyf t 29 0Al lOtherRea{" Property

r--..162 Naturalizationu Ap p l i c a t lo nr- t 46 5Other! lmmig ra t io nc t io n s

HabeasCorpus:E 46 3Al ienDetaineei- l 51 Motions o vacate- Sentence[] 53 0General[ 53 5DeathPena l ty

Other:! 5+ 0Mandamus/OtherI 5 50 iv i lR ig h ts5 55 5Prison ondit ion_ 56 0Civ i lDetaineeL-J Condit i ons fConfinement

n 82 0CopyrightsD 83 0Patent[ 840Trademark

TORTSrORTS PFRSONAI PROPFRTY[ 8 61HtA( t3 9 s f0E 86 2Black un g 923)n 86 3 rwc/Dtww4o sq) )I 86 4 stD i t tevlf l 86sRst4o ss))

FEDERALAXSUITS

[ 3 T0 Oth e rFra u d[ 3 7 1Tru th n L e n d in g| - . l 380OtherPersonal! Property amaqen 38 5Property amag(u Product iabi l i ty

fn3 1 0A i rp la n e3 1 A i rp la n eProduct iabi l i ty32 0Assault , ibel5l a de r33 0Fed Fmployers 'L ia b r l i t y34 0Marine34 5MarineProductL ia b i l i t y35 0MotorVehic le3 55Mo to r e h ic leProduct iab i l i ty36 0OtherPersonalln ju r y362 Personaln jury-Med Malprat ice36 5Personaln1uryProduct iabi l i ty3 6 / He a l th a re lP a maceuticaPersonaln lu ryPro d u c t ia b i l i t y36 8AsbestosPersonaln juryD . ^ 1 . , - + i i - a ; l i * . ,

ffnfl

I

ntrfn

EANKRUPTCY FORFEITURE/PENALTYr-..r870TaxesU.5Plaintiffru Defendant)1* 187r RS-rhirdarty 6U5 C- 7609

; -1 42 2Appeal 8" u 5 c 1 5 8r- - t 42 3Wathdrawal8! u s c 1 5 7

n 62 5DrugRelatedLl Seizure f Property 1u Sc8 8 1I 690otherIVILRIGHTSI 44 0OtherCiv i lRight

[ 44 1Voting! +42Employment-, , 44 3Housing/u Accomodations

4.15 rnerican i t i lI D is a b i l l t i e sE m lo y me n tn 44 6American i thu D is a b i l i t r e sth e rf ] 44 8Education

LABOR1 71 Fair aborStandards" Act; 72 0Labor/Mgmt.- - Relatlons[ 74 0Ra i lwayaborActl - , - ,75 1Fami ly nd MedicalU Leave ctf t 79 0OtherLabor! L r t rq a t ro ni - - . l79 1Employee et ncu Security c t

2 ' 1 0 a ndCo n d e mn a t io n22 0Fo re c lo s u re23 0Rent easeEtectmet

TIT

V l . c A U s E oF A c T | o N ( C i t e t he U . S ' C i v i | S t u tu t " , n d " ,EquitableubrogationndReimbursement

FOROFFICESE NLY:Case umberAFTERCOMPLETING AGE1 OF FORMCV-71,COMPLETE HE NFORMATION EQUESTEDN PAGE2

cv-71 (02/13) CIVIT OVERHEET Page of 2



13/13

a

Vl l l (a) . DENT|CALASES:l f yes, ist ase umberlsT:

UNITED TATES ISTRICTOURT, ENTRALISTRICTFCALIFORNIACIVIL OVER HEETHashis ct ion een reviouslyi ledn his ourt nd ismissed,emandedrclosed? ENO n YES

Vl l l (b ) ' RELATED ASES:Have ny ases een revrous lyi led n h is our t hatare e la tedo thepresent ase? E N O T YESl f y e s , i s t a s e u mb e r (s ) :

Civ i l

Documents

ACE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY et al Complaint