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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
: CIVIL ACTION NO:
: 3:14-cv-1667
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
vs.
:
:
ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
:
CO., ARROWOOD INDEMNITY CO.,
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
:
:
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, :
HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY :
:
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
:
MERRIMACK MUTUAL INSURANCE
:
COMPANY, ONEBEACON AMERICA
:
INSURANCE COMPANY, ONEBEACON
:
INSURANCE COMPANY, PUBLIC SERVICE
INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED STATES FIRE :
:
INSURANCE COMPANY, ALFA MUTUAL
:
INSURANCE COMPANY, ARGONAUT
:
INSURANCE COMPANY, CINCINNATI
INSURANCE COMPANY, EMPLOYERS
:
:
INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU,
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, :
:
and NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,
:
Defendants.
: NOVEMBER 10, 2014
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO.,

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 2 of 31

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 the

settlement 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

-2-

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

Company of Hartford.

Through its participation in ECRA, Arrowood 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 Arrowood.
8.
corporation.

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

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

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 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

-3-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 4 of 31

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
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 Hanover.
14.

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

Massachusetts corporation.

Through its participation in ECRA, Liberty Mutual 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 Liberty Mutual.
15.

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

Massachusetts corporation. Through its participation in ECRA, Merrimack 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 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
reinsurance contracts referenced in Paragraphs 45 and 46 below. The reinsurance contracts were

-4-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 5 of 31

made and/or were to be performed in the State of Connecticut. This Court therefore has personal
jurisdiction over OneBeacon America.
17.

The Defendant,

OneBeacon Insurance

Company (OneBeacon),

is

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 an

Illinois 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

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 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

-5-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 6 of 31

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
Insurance to conduct an insurance and/or reinsurance business within the State of Connecticut.
22.

Alfa 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.
23.

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

corporation. Through its participation in ECRA, Argonaut was a participating reinsurer in the
reinsurance 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
and/or was to be performed in the State of Connecticut. This Court therefore has personal
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

-6-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 7 of 31

performed in the State of Connecticut. This Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over
Wausau.
26.
corporation.

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

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

reinsurance 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 INA.
27.

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

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

-7-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 8 of 31

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 from
January 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

-8-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 9 of 31

half to the 1970 Policy.

41.

Travelers sustained litigation and other expenses in the course of its dispute with

Fitchburg Gas referenced in paragraph 36.

42.

Travelers allocated a portion of its litigation and other expenses to the 1969

43.

Travelers allocated a portion of its litigation and other expenses to the 1970

Policy.

Policy.
IV.

THE REINSURERS REINSURANCE OF TRAVELERS

44.

Reinsurance contracts come in two principal types treaty reinsurance

contracts, which reinsurer an entire book of business or group of policies, and facultative
certificates, which reinsure a single policy.
45.

Through ECRA, Travelers purchased a facultative certificate reinsuring the 1969

Policy. The certificate bore certificate number FC 23-49 (the 1969 Facultative Certificate).
The participating reinsurers on the 1969 Facultative Certificate included ACE Property,
Arrowood, CCC, CIC, Factory Mutual, Hanover, Liberty Mutual, Merrimack, OneBeacon
America, OneBeacon, Public Service, and U.S. Fire (the 1969 Reinsurers).
46.

Through ECRA, Travelers purchased a facultative certificate reinsuring the 1970

Policy. The certificate bore certificate number FC 23-112 (the 1970 Facultative Certificate).
The participating reinsurers on the 1970 Facultative Certificate included ACE Property, Alfa,
Argonaut, Arrowood, Cincinnati, CCC, CIC, Wausau, Factory Mutual, Hanover, INA, Liberty
Mutual, Merrimack, NICO, OneBeacon America, OneBeacon, Public Service, and U.S. Fire (the
1970 Reinsurers).
47.

The 1969 Facultative Certificate provides in part that [a]ll claims involving this

-9-

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

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.

-10-

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

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 1969

Certificate, 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
66.

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

if fully set forth herein.

67.

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

and Arrowood.

-11-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 12 of 31

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

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

Certificate, in an amount not less than $4,225.27.

COUNT THREE Contract Breach Against CCC 1969 Facultative Certificate
73.

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

if fully set forth herein.

74.

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

and CCC.
75.

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

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

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,

-12-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 13 of 31

in an amount not less than $19,852.47.

COUNT FOUR Contract Breach Against CIC 1969 Facultative Certificate
80.

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

if fully set forth herein.

81.

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

and CIC.
82.

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

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

83.

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

1969 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

breach of the 1969 Facultative Certificate.

86.

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

in an amount not less than $6,335.48.

COUNT FIVE Contract Breach Against Factory Mutual 1969 Facultative Certificate
87.

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

if fully set forth herein.

88.

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

and Factory Mutual.

89.

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

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

90.

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

-13-

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

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

constitutes a breach of the 1969 Facultative Certificate.

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 as

if fully set forth herein.

95.

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

and Hanover.
96.

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

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

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

99.

Hanovers wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a

97.

breach of the 1969 Facultative Certificate.

100.

Travelers has been damaged by Hanovers breach of the 1969 Facultative

Certificate, in an amount not less than $5,068.87.

-14-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 15 of 31

COUNT SEVEN Contract Breach Against Liberty Mutual 1969 Facultative Certificate
101.

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

if fully set forth herein.

102.

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

and Liberty Mutual.

103.

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

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

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

constitutes a breach of the 1969 Facultative Certificate.

107.

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

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

COUNT EIGHT Contract Breach Against Merrimack 1969 Facultative Certificate
108.

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

if fully set forth herein.

109.

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

and Merrimack.
110.

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

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

111.

Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Merrimack

-15-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 16 of 31

under the 1969 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.
112.

Merrimack wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 111.
113.

Merrimacks wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim

constitutes a breach of the 1969 Facultative Certificate.

114.

Travelers has been damaged by Merrimacks breach of the 1969 Facultative

Certificate, in an amount not less than $1,268.23.

COUNT NINE Contract Breach Against OneBeacon America 1969 Facultative
Certificate
115.

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

if fully set forth herein.

116.

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

and OneBeacon America.

117.

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

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

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

constitutes a breach of the 1969 Facultative Certificate.

121.

Travelers has been damaged by OneBeacon Americas breach of the 1969

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

-16-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 17 of 31

COUNT TEN Contract Breach Against OneBeacon 1969 Facultative Certificate

122.

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

if fully set forth herein.

123.

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

and OneBeacon.
124.

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

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

125.

Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to 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

constitutes a breach of the 1969 Facultative Certificate.

128.

Travelers has been damaged by OneBeacons breach of the 1969 Facultative

Certificate, in an amount not less than $1,268.23.

COUNT ELEVEN Contract Breach Against Public Service 1969 Facultative Certificate
129.

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

if fully set forth herein.

130.

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

and Public Service.

131.

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

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

132.

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

-17-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 18 of 31

under the 1969 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.
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
136.

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

if fully set forth herein.

137.

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

and U.S. Fire.

138.

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

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

139.

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

the 1969 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.
140.

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

141.

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

139.

a breach of the 1969 Facultative Certificate.

142.

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

-18-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 19 of 31

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

COUNT THIRTEEN Contract Breach Against ACE Property 1970 Facultative
Certificate
143.

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

if fully set forth herein.

144.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and ACE Property.

145.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

146.

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

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

constitutes a breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

149.

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

Certificate, in an amount not less than $9,035.00.

COUNT FOURTEEN Contract Breach Against Alfa 1970 Facultative Certificate
150.

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

if fully set forth herein.

151.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and Alfa.
152.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

-19-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 20 of 31

153.

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

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

breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

156.

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

in an amount not less than $1,354.60.

COUNT FIFTEEN Contract Breach Against Argonaut 1970 Facultative Certificate
157.

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

if fully set forth herein.

158.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and Argonaut.
159.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

160.

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

the 1970 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.
161.

Argonaut wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph

162.

Argonauts wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes

160.

a breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

163.

Travelers has been damaged by Argonauts breach of the 1970 Facultative

Certificate, in an amount not less than $4,519.12.

-20-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 21 of 31

COUNT SIXTEEN Contract Breach Against Arrowood 1970 Facultative Certificate

164.

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

if fully set forth herein.

165.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and Arrowood.
166.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

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

a breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

170.

Travelers has been damaged by Arrowoods breach of the 1970 Facultative

Certificate, in an amount not less than $4,519.12.

COUNT SEVENTEEN Contract Breach Against Cincinnati 1970 Facultative
Certificate
171.

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

if fully set forth herein.

172.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and Cincinnati.
173.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

174.

Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Cincinnati

-21-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 22 of 31

under the 1970 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.
175.

Cincinnati wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 174.
176.

Cincinnatis wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes

a breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

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
178.

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

if fully set forth herein.

179.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and CCC.
180.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

181.

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

1970 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.
182.

CCC wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph

183.

CCCs wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a

181.

breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

184.

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

in an amount not less than $10,841.68.

-22-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 23 of 31

COUNT NINETEEN Contract Breach Against CIC 1970 Facultative Certificate

185.

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

if fully set forth herein.

186.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and CIC.
187.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

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

breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

191.

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

in an amount not less than $6,777.06.

COUNT TWENTY Contract Breach Against Wausau 1970 Facultative Certificate
192.

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

if fully set forth herein.

193.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and Wausau.
194.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

195.

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

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

-23-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 24 of 31

196.

Wausau wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph

197.

Wausaus wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a

195.

breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

198.

Travelers has been damaged by Wausaus breach of the 1970 Facultative

Certificate, in an amount not less than $1,807.49.

COUNT TWENTY-ONE Contract Breach Against Factory Mutual 1970 Facultative
Certificate
199.

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

if fully set forth herein.

200.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and Factory Mutual.

201.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

202.

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

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

constitutes a breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

205.

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

Certificate, in an amount not less than $2,259.56.

COUNT TWENTY-TWO Contract Breach Against Hanover 1970 Facultative
Certificate
206.

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

-24-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 25 of 31

if fully set forth herein.

207.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and Hanover.
208.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

209.

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

the 1970 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.
210.

Hanover wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph

211.

Hanovers wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a

209.

breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

212.

Travelers has been damaged by Hanovers breach of the 1970 Facultative

Certificate, in an amount not less than $5,421.65.

COUNT TWENTY-THREE Contract Breach Against INA 1970 Facultative Certificate
213.

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

if fully set forth herein.

214.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and INA.
215.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

216.

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

1970 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.
217.

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

-25-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 26 of 31

218.

INAs wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a

breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

219.

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

in an amount not less than $2,711.63.

COUNT TWENTY-FOUR Contract Breach Against Liberty Mutual 1970 Facultative
Certificate
220.

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

if fully set forth herein.

221.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and Liberty Mutual.

222.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

223.

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

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

constitutes a breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

226.

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

Certificate, in an amount not less than $11,296.18.

COUNT TWENTY-FIVE Contract Breach Against Merrimack 1970 Facultative
Certificate
227.

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

if fully set forth herein.

228.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers
-26-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 27 of 31

and Merrimack.
229.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

230.

Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to Merrimack

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

Certificate, in an amount not less than $2,711.63.

COUNT TWENTY-SIX Contract Breach Against NICO 1970 Facultative Certificate
234.

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

if fully set forth herein.

235.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and NICO.
236.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

237.

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

1970 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.
238.

NICO wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in Paragraph

239.

NICOs wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim constitutes a

237.

-27-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 28 of 31

breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

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 1970
Facultative Certificate
241.

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

if fully set forth herein.

242.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and OneBeacon America.

243.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

244.

Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to OneBeacon

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

constitutes a breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

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 Facultative
Certificate
248.

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

if fully set forth herein.

249.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and OneBeacon.
-28-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 29 of 31

250.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

251.

Through ETMC, Travelers submitted a valid reinsurance claim to OneBeacon

under the 1970 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.
252.

OneBeacon wrongfully refused to pay the reinsurance claim referenced in

Paragraph 251.
253.

OneBeacons wrongful refusal to pay Travelers valid reinsurance claim

constitutes a breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

254.

Travelers has been damaged by OneBeacons breach of the 1970 Facultative

Certificate, in an amount not less than $1,354.60.

COUNT TWENTY-NINE Contract Breach Against Public Service 1970 Facultative
Certificate
255.

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

if fully set forth herein.

256.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and Public Service.

257.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

258.

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

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

constitutes a breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

-29-

Case 3:14-cv-01667-AWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 30 of 31

261.

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

Certificate, in an amount not less than $1,807.49.

COUNT THIRTY Contract Breach Against U.S. Fire 1970 Facultative Certificate
262.

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

if fully set forth herein.

263.

The 1970 Facultative Certificate is a valid and binding contract between Travelers

and U.S. Fire.

264.

Travelers performed all of its conditions precedent to coverage under the 1970

Certificate, including but not limited to payment of premium.

265.

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

the 1970 Certificate, arising out of its dispute and settlement with Fitchburg Gas.
266.

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

267.

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

265.

a breach of the 1970 Facultative Certificate.

268.

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

Certificate, in an amount not less than $2,259.56.

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

-30-

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

5.

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

Plaintiff,
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
COMPANY,
By:
___/s/ Thomas O. Farrish_______________
Thomas O. Farrish (ct26917)
tofarrish@daypitney.com
Benjamin H. Nissim (ct29501)
bnissim@daypitney.com
Day Pitney LLP
242 Trumbull St.
Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499
(860) 275-0100
(860) 275-0343 (fax)
Its Attorneys

-31-