Page 1
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 1/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 1 of 16
Bruce A. Maak (2033)
Jeffrey D. Stevens (8496)PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
185 South State Street, Suite 800Salt Lake City, Utah 84111801 257 7928 telephone801 552 7750 fax
[email protected] @parrbrown.com
Thomas B. Alleman TX SBN 01017485
COX SMITHMATTHEWS INCORPORATED
1201 Elm, Suite 3300
Dallas, Texas 75270
214 698 7830 telephone
214 698 7899 [email protected]
Pro Hac Vice Pending
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
HEADWATERS RESOURCES INC,
A Utah Corporation
10653 South River Front ParkwayCOMPLAINT
Suite 300
South Jordan, Utah 84095Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-1079
Plaintiff,
VS .
Judge Dee Benson
ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE CO.
An Ill inois Corporation, ACE JURY DEMANDED
AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.
A Pennsylvania Corporation,ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.,
AMERICAN GUARANTEE &
LIABILITY INSURANCE CO., and
STEADFAST INSURANCE CO.,
Defendants
COMPLAINT Page 1
2745622.1
Page 2
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 2/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 2 of 16
HeadwaterResources
Inc, complainsof Defendants as follows:
I. JURISDICTION, PARTIES AND VENUE.
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332,
As explained in this Complaint, there exists complete diversity of citizenship between
the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of costs, interest
and fees.
2, Plaintiff Headwaters Resources Inc. ["Headwaters"[ is a corporation in
good standing whose sole domicile is in the state of Utah and whose sole principal
place of business is located at 10653 South River Fron t Parkway, Suite 300, South
Jordan, Salt Lake County, Utah 84095.
3. Defendant Illinois Union Insurance Co. ["Illinois Unionl is an insurance
company that is authorized to and regularly does issue policies of insurance in the state
of Utah. Illinois Union's sole domicile is in the state of Illinois and its sole principal
place of business is located at 436 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.
4. Defendant ACE American Insurance Co. f"ACE Americanl is an
insurance company that is authorized to and regularly does issue policies of insurance
in the state of Utah. ACE American's sole domicile is in the state of Pennsylvania and
its sole principal place of business is located at 436 Walnut Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19106.
COMPLAINT Page 22745622.1
Page 3
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 3/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 3 of 16
5. Defendants Illinois Union and ACE American are corporate affiliates
sharing acommon
ultimate parent anda common
claims-handling organization.
Defendants Illinois Union and ACE American are sometimes referred to in this
Complaint as "the ACE defendants."
6. Defendant Zurich American Insurance Co. ["Zurich American"( is an
insurance company that is authorized to and regularly does issue policies of insurance
in the state of Utah. Zurich American's sole domicile is in the state of New York and its
sole principal place of business is located at 1400 American Lane, Schaumberg, Illinois
60196.
7. Defendant American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co. ["American
Guarantee"( is an insurance company that is authorized to and regularly does issue
policies of insurance in the state of Utah. American Guarantee's sole domicile is in the
state of New York and its sole principal place of business is located at 1400 American
Lane, Schaumberg, Illinois 60196.
8. Defendant Steadfast Insurance Co. ["Steadfast"( is a surplus lines
insurance company that regularly issues policies of insurance in the state of Utah.
Steadfast's sole domicile is in the state of Delaware and its sole principal place of
business is located at 1400 American Lane, Schaumberg, Illinois 60196,
9. Defendants Zurich American, American Guarantee and Steadfast are
corporate affiliates sharing a common ultimate parent. Defendants Zurich American,
COMPLAINT Page 3
2745622.1
Page 4
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 4/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 4 of 16
American Guarantee and Steadfast are sometimes referred to in this Complaint as "the
Zurich defendants."
10. Each Defendant regularly transacts business in Utah through the sale of
insurance policies and the adjustment of claims in the state of Utah. The ACE
Defendants issued policies of insurance insuring Headwaters at a time when
Headwaters was both domiciled in and a resident of the state of Utah. This Court may
therefore
properlyexercise jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to UTAH CODE ANN,
§7813-3-205(1) and (5).
11 , Venue for this action is properly laid in this District and Division pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claims
asserted in this case, including but not limited to negotiation and delivery of the
insurance policies to Headwaters in the state of Utah and breaches of those contracts,
took place here,
II. BACKGROUND FOR PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS.
a. The ACE Defendants.
12. Illinois Union and ACE American are affiliated entities, having a common
parent, common procedures, common underwriting staffs and common administrative
personnel. Underwriting information concerning Headwaters obtained by Illinois
Union was available to and shared with ACE American at all times relevant to this
Complaint. Similarly, both Defendants demanded that Headwaters use a captive
claims organization, ESIS, 140 Broadway 40th Floor, New York, New York 10015, at all
COMPLAINT Page 42745622.1
Page 5
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 5/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 5 of 16
times pertinent to this matter. Information requested by ESIS from Plaintiff as a part of
the claims processis or
may be relied upon by Defendantsas a
partof their decision to
deny coverage.
13. Prior to issuing any policies to Headwaters and at all pertinent points
thereafter, Defendants were aware of Headwaters' business and of its products and
activities. Defendants were aware at all points pertinent to this matter that Headwaters'
business included the sale of fly ash or coal combustion products. As an example of this
knowledge and of their willingness to underwrite losses based upon the sale of
Headwaters' fly ash products, Illinois Union policy XSL G18381667 contained a
document known as a "Retained Limits Endorsement" setting a Retained Limit of
$15,000 each occurrence from CCP Division (Fly Ash)." Later policies issued by each
Defendant contained a single retained l imit for all of Headwaters' various divisions,
operations and products, but never excluded products coverage for coal combustion
products, fly ash or for the activities of VFL Technology Incorporated, which was added
as a named insured in 2004.
14. Illinois Union issued four policies of general liability insurance insuring
Headwaters among other businesses as follows:
COMPLAINT Page 52745622.1
Page 6
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 6/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 6 of 16
POLICYNUMBER
POLICY TERM LIMITS
X$L G18381667 Mareh---1, .2003.-Mareh 15, $2 million per ocithcnce2004. $4 milliOn.6-gpepate
XSL G21811300 March 15, 2004-March 15, $2 million per occur rence
2005 $4 million aggregateXSL-G22078586. MarCh- 15 2005-0c(Ober .1, $2 milliOK pee.-cicCurrence
2005'. $4 million aggregateXSL G22903639 October 1, 2005-October 1, $2 million per occurrence
2006 $4 million aggregate
15. ACE American issued three policies of general liability insurance insuring
Headwaters among other businesses as follows:
16. Each of the Illinois Union and ACE American policies just described takes
the same general form. All provide "occurrence" based coverage; that is, coverage of
accidents, including continuing exposure to substantially the same general harmful
conditions, that occur during the policy period. Likewise, each of the Illinois Union and
ACE American
policies provides coveragefor
"bodily injury"and
"property damage"as defined in the policies. "Bodily injury" as defined in the Illinois Union and ACE
American policies includes claims for injury and disease or for biological injury, even at
the cellular level. "Property damage" as defined in the Illinois Union and ACE
COMPLAINT Page 62745622,1
POLICY NUMBER POLICY TERM LIMITS
'...PM1 22904231.:
'04'"million'Aggregate,PMI 23858800 October 1, 2007-October 1, $2 million per occurrence
2008 $4 million aggregate
pmr.E.0246.$I
Page 7
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 7/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 7 of 16
American policies includes loss of use of tangible property that has not been injured or
destroyed.The Illinois Union and ACE American
policies' provisions governingloss of
use contain "deemer" clauses; that is, even if the loss of use of the property takes place
after the policy has expired it is deemed to have occurred during the policy period or
when the event took place.
17, Each of the Illinois Union and ACE American policies just described is
responsible up to its limits for all damages an insured may be obligated to pay,
regardless of when incurred, because of "bodily injury" or "property damage" during
the policy period.
18 . Each of the Illinois Union and ACE American policies just described
obligates its issuing insurer to reimburse Headwaters for defense costs and other
allocated loss adjustment expenses as defined in the policy in excess of the Self-Insured
Retention amount which varies from year to year but never exceeds $50,000 per year.
Headwaters has exhausted the various policies' Self-Insured Retention amounts or soon
will do so. Under the terms of the policies, as well as applicable law, so long as any
single claim made by a plaintiff creates the potential for coverage under the policy,
Illinois Union and ACE American are obligated to reimburse Headwater for all of its
defense costs above the Self-Insured Retention amount, even if the claims are
groundless, false or fraudulent.
19. Each of the Illinois Union and ACE American policies just described
contains endorsements entirely removing coverage for lead and asbestos. None of the
COMPLAINT Page 72745622.1
Page 8
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 8/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 8 of 16
Illinois Union and ACE American policies just described contains any exclusion
specifically referringto
fly ashor
coal combustion products.
20 . All premiums for each policy described in paragraphs 14 and 15 of this
Complaint were timely paid in full.
21 . Headwaters has timely complied with all conditions precedent to
coverage under each policy described in paragraphs 14 and 15 of this Complaint.
b. The Zurich defendants.
22. Prior to the acquisition of 100 per cent of its stock by Headwaters in April
2004, VFL Technology Corporation purchased primary, umbrella, environmental
impairment and professional consulting errors and omissions coverage from the Zurich
defendants. Like the ACE defendants, the Zurich defendants are affiliated corporate
entities, sharing common ownership and management at the highest levels. The Zurich
defendants also share common procedures, common underwriting staffs and common
administrative personnel. Information about VFL's business before and after
acquisition of its stock by Headwaters was shared by and between the Zurich
defendants. Information requested by Defendants as a part of the claims process may
be used to deny coverage to Headwaters.
23 . The Zurich defendants issued three policies of primary general liability
insurance to VFL as follows:
COMPLAINT Page 8
2745622.1
Page 9
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 9/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 9 of 16
I POLICY NUMBER I POLICY TERM LIMITS
$2-million.aggegateAmerican Guarantee & April 1, 2002-Apri11, 2003 $2 million per occurrence
Liability GLO 3769921-01 $4 million aggregate
....A.iiiei4j*.:.:.-...:.::.ii44::ii:(0:i:, ..„.$4: ::'..rj:.:i0ii5iiF,1;::2003-j0--....66.:::71::2004'.:: .$%'..:0:11:4:0-:::P.0;31§e-ti(, ..04:0.......,'.E:-:::::-:t..Lii.ljiIiiit6L69.::::6..1.9.121-,,02:, s':::, --1•;-• -.1: ...$Zi.tiiilliiiiilAktOg4te:r..,.
24. Each of the Zurich American and American Guarantee policies just
described takes the same general form. All provide "occurrence" based coverage; that
is, coverage of accidents, including continuing exposureto
substantiallythe same
general harmful conditions, that occur during the policy period. Likewise, each of the
Zurich American and American Guarantee policies provides coverage for "bodily
injury" and "property damage" as defined in the policies. "Bodily injury" as defined in
the Zurich American and American Guarantee policies includes claims for injury and
disease or for biological injury, even at the cellular level. "Property damage" as defined
in the Zurich American and American Guarantee policies includes loss of use of
tangible property that has not been injured or destroyed. The Zurich American and
American Guarantee policies' provisions governing loss of use contain "deemer"
clauses; that is, even if the loss of use of the property takes place after the policy has
expired it is deemed to have occurred during the policy period or when the event took
place.
25 . Each of the Zurich American and American Guarantee policies just
described is responsible up to its limits for all damages an insured may be obligated to
COMPLAINT Page 9
2745622,1
Page 10
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 10/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 10 of 16
pay, regardless of when incurred, because of "bodily injury" or "property damage"
duringthe
policy period.
26. Additionally, each of the Zurich American and American Guarantee
policies just described contains a substantial limitation on the pollution exclusion
normally found in a CGL policy. Specifically, each Zurich American and American
Guarantee policy just listed contained a provision stating that its pollution exclusion
did not apply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of listed products
manufactured, sold handled or distributed by VFL as listed on a schedule in the
applicable endorsement. That schedule specifically resulted in coverage for VFL's
"[Nroducts derived from Industrial or Utility Plant Bi-Products [sic], Contaminated Soil
or Waste/Water Facilities." VFL specifically requested such coverage and paid an
additional premium fo r it,
27. In addition to the three primary CGL policies just described, Steadfast issued
tw o policies of umbrella insurance to VFL each with limits of $10 million in addition to
the limits described above as follows:
I POLICY NUMBER I POLICY TERM I LIMITS
aggregate
Steadfast SUO 3825595-01 April 1, 2003-june 1, 2004 $10 million per occurrence/aggregate
28 . These Steadfast policies contained the same provisions found in the
underlying Zurich American and American Guarantee primary policies providing
COMPLAINT Page 102745622.1
Page 11
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 11/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 11 of 16
coverage for VFL's "fpiroducts derived from Industrial or Utility Plant Bi-Products
[sic], Contaminated Soilor
Waste/Water Facilities,VFL
specifically requestedsuch
coverage and paid an additional premium for it,
29. In addition to these "occurrence" policies issued by the Zurich defendants
prior to the acquisition of VFL's stock by Headwaters, both VFL before its acquisition
and Headwaters afterward maintained claims made-claims reported policies issued by
Steadfast These are:
POLICY NUMBER AND POLICY TERM LIMITS
TYPE
Steadfast EI'C 5336783-04 Oetober 1, alL/8-October 1, 1 million per occurrence/
Z Choice P011ution 2009 2 million aggiegc te
Liability -policy, on site
and off 'site coverage for
bodilyinjury proper ydamage And clean-up costs
Steadfast PEC 5336780-04 October 1, 2008-October 1, $1 million per occurrence/Professional 2009 $2 million aggregateEnvironmental
Consultant's LiabilityCoverage including errors
and omissions coverage
and coverage fo r ongoingor completed operationsincluding fly ash/bottomash disposal services.
30. All premiums for each policy described in paragraphs 23, 27 and 29 of this
Complaint were timely paid in full,
31. Headwaters has timely complied with all conditions precedent to
coverage under each policy described in paragraphs 23, 27, and 29 of this Complaint.
COMPLAINT Page 112745622.1
Page 12
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 12/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 12 of 16
c. The Underlying litigation.
32. Beginningin late March
2009,Headwaters and VFL
Technology
Corporation were named as Defendants in mass tort lawsuits, Fentress Family Trust, et
al., v. Virginia Electric and Power Co., et al., No. CL09-710, and Sears, et al., V. v. Virginia
Electric and Power Co., et A, No. CL09-1914 ["the underlying cases"], each filed in the
Circuit Court for the City of Chesapeake, Virginia. The original Complaints in each of
the underlying cases erroneously named Headwaters Incorporated as a defendant, but
the error has been corrected and Headwaters Resources has been substituted as the
proper party defendant.
33. The Complaints in the underlying cases run to approximately one
thousand pages and allege numerous claims including claims for negligence, products
liability, negligent infliction of emotional distress, nuisance, breach of warranty,
negligent misrepresentation and other claims all arising out of the use of approximately
1.5 million tons of amended coal combustion byproducts allegedly beginning in March
2002 and continuing through 2007 as fill material for the construction of the Battlefield
Golf Club. The Fentress Family Trust complaint alleges, for example, that the golf course
site constituted a nuisance, that Headwaters is liable for a failing to warn about a
defective product and for breaching an express warranty as to the characteristics of the
coal combustion byproducts, and fo r negligently permitting the material to be placed at
the site without a liner, among other claims. However, neither of the underlying cases
alleges affirmatively or exclusively that Headwaters designed the pit or area where the
COMPLAINT Page 122745622.1
Page 13
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 13/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 13 of 16
material was placed at the golf course, supervised the construction of the course or
selected the
amendingmaterial. Headwaters denies all
allegationsmade
againstit but
any analysis of Defendants' obligations to defend Headwaters must rest upon those
allegations, because the duty to defend exists even if the allegations in the underlying
cases are groundless, false and fraudulent.
34. Each plaintiff in the underlying cases seeks substantial damages for past,
present, and future bodily injuries, property damage, nuisance vexation as well as fo r
removal of the coal combustion byproducts from the golf course. Headwaters denies all
claims for damages asserted against it but any analysis of Defendants' obligations to
defend Headwaters must rest upon those allegations, because the duty to defend exists
even if the allegations in the underlying cases are groundless, false and fraudulent.
35. Headwaters promptly tendered the underlying cases to Defendants and
requested that they honor their contractual obligations to defend and indemnify
Headwaters as required by their policies. Instead of doing so , however, Illinois Union
and ACE American have each expressly repudiated the contractual obligations fo r
which they received substantial premiums from Headwaters and affiliated entities.
Each has affirmatively and unreserved denied all coverage for the allegations in the
underlying cases and stated that it will not honor any obligation contained in any of the
policies. The Zurich defendants have not provided any response for over six months
since tender was made to them of the underlying lawsuits as to whether they will honor
their contractual obligations under any of the policies described herein,
COMPLAINT Page 132745622.1
Page 14
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 14/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 14 of 16
36. In the meantime, Headwaters has borne the entire burden of defending
itself in the underlying lawsuit, and has expendedover
$160,000 to date in
defending
itself, an amount that can reliably be expected to increase dramatically as the
underlying litigation continues,
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Count One Breach of Contract
37. Headwaters incorporates paragraphs 1 through 36 by reference as though
fully se t forth.
38. Defendants' repudiation of their contractual obligations is a breach of
their contracts that has proximately caused Headwaters to suffer damages including
attorney's fees, allocated loss adjustment expenses and other costs in the underlying
cases and to be exposed to other future losses in an amount greatly in excess of the
minimum jurisdictional authority of this Court.
39, Plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees necessitated to
enforce its rights under the insurance policies described in this case.
Count Two Bad Faith
40, Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 39 by reference as though
fully set forth,
41. By virtue of the provisions in the various policies they issued and for
which they accepted substantial premiums, Defendants are fiduciaries and owe Plaintiff
COMPLAINT Page 142745622.1
Page 15
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 15/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 15 of 16
the highest degree of care to ac t fairly and reasonably in the evaluation and disposition
of
liabilityclaims
againstPlaintiff,
42, The ACE defendants have breached this obligation in at least the
following respects: (1 ) by failing to take into account in their decision to deny coverage
the fact that they accepted substantial premiums from Headwaters with the knowledge
that the CCP material involved in this matter was a product rather than a pollutant as
the terms are used in their policies, thereby rendering Plaintiff's coverage illusory; (2 )
by denying coverage based upon "pollution exclusions" in their policies when in fact
the language of those decisions as well as controlling authority construing the decisions
did not support that decision; and (3) by prejudging negatively the circumstances of
the underlying claims and then crafting such investigation as was performed and any
analysis of coverage so as to support that decision rather than being guided by the
language of the policies they issued and controlling authority. Plaintiff reserves the
right to amend to assert other bases in support of this claim as discovery proceeds.
43, The Zurich defendants have breached this obligation at the very least by
failing to respond under any policy issued by any of them for over six months after
being put on notice of the underlying lawsuits, despite the provisions in the policies
described earlier in this complaint, and despite communications from Plaintiff and its
counsel as to the situation, Plaintiff reserves the right to amend to assert other bases in
support of this claim as discovery proceeds.
COMPLAINT Page 152745622.1
Page 16
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 16/17
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 16 of 16
44. As a direct and proximate result of these errors and omissions by
Defendants,Plaintiff has sustained substantial
damagesas set forth above and also
by
having to retain counsel in this action to vindicate its rights. Plaintiff prays for recovery
of its attorney's fees in this action and for any other damages it may prove itself entitled
to, including but not limited to recoveries in excess of Defendants' policy limits in the
event settlement opportunities cannot be accepted because of Defendants' wrongful
conduct.
Jury Demand
45. Plaintiff prays for trial by jury on all claims so triable.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in its favor and against Defendants,
for declarations as set forth above, for an award of damages, for its attorney's fees as
prevailing party, for costs, pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law and for
such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Dated this 8th day of December, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
/s./ Jeffrey D. StevensBruce A. Maak
Jeffrey D. Stevens
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COX SMITHMATTHEWS INCORPORATED
/s/ Thomas B. Alleman
COMPLAINT Page 162745622.1
Page 17
8/7/2019 HEADWATERS RESOURCES v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE et al Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/headwaters-resources-v-illinois-union-insurance-et-al-complaint 17/17
I •1 12 I 1 4- 1 I. 1
1 Breach of Contract
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2-2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 1 of 1
cta,JS 44 (Rev. 12/07) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 94 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace no r supplement the filing and seryice ofpleadingsor other papers as required by law, except as provby local rules of court, This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is requtred for the use of the Clerk ofCourt for the purposeof initiathe civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS IllinoiSUnion,..InSurance Co., A
HEADWATERS-RESOURCES, INC., a Utah?. AMerican Insurance Co., Zurich American
corporation,,Insurance Co., American Guarantee & Liabil
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff' Salt -Lake. County of Residence ofFirst Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S, PLAINTIFF CASES).”. (1 N U.S. PLAINTIFF CASESONLY
Bruce A. Maak (2033'NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION
CASES,USE THE LOCATION OF THE
LAND INVOLVED.
Jeffrey,D.-Stelien(8496)'.PARR. GEE &:LOVELESS' AtiOnleyS (IfKnown)
185 South State, Suite 8007..Sal t Lake City, UT 84111. (An1) S.32-78/10
IL BASISOFJUIUSDICTION (Place an "X " in ale Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place. an "X " in One Box for Pla
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)0 1 U.S. Govermnent 0 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DE
Plaintiff (US, Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 0 I 0 1 Incorporated or Principal Place Xl 4 0
of 13usiness In ThisState
0 2 U.S. Government XI 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 0 2 0 2 Incorporated a/sr/Principal Place 0 5 x0Defendant of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)
Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 0 6 0
anti KT A MT ID !IV VI TIPtru
1., .--::-.0N;TRA-Ci TORTS' i'-' --FORFEITURE/PENALTY, BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
OHO Insurance PERSONAL, INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 0 610 Agriculinre 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 400 State Reapportionment
0 120 Marine 0 310 Airplane 0 362 Personal Injury 0 620 Other Food & Drug 0 423 Withdrawal 0 410 Antitrust
CI 130 Miller Act CI 315 Airplane Product Merl. Malpractice 0 625 Drug Related Seizure. 28 USC 157 0 430 Banks and Banking
0 140 Negratiahle Instrument Liability 0 365 Personal Injury of Property 21 USC 881 0 450 Commerce
0 150 Recovety of Oveipapnent 0 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability 0 630 Liquor Laws I PROPERTY RIGHTS 0 460 Deportation& Enforcement ofiudgment Slander 0 368 Asbestos Personal 0 640 R.R. & Truck 0 820 Copyrights 0 470 Racketeer Influenced an
CI 151 MedicareAct 0 330 Federal Employers' Injury Product 0 650 Airline Regs. 0 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations0 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability 0 660 Occupational 0 840 Trademark 0 480 Constuner Credit
Student Loans 0 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health 0 490 Cable/Sal TV
(Excl. Veterans) 0 345 Marine Product n 370 Other Fraud 0 690Other 0 810 Selective Service
0 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability 171 371 Truth in Lending TABOR SOCIAL SECURITY' CI 850 Securities/Commoditie
of Veteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle II 380 Other Personal 0 710 Fair Labor Standards 0 861 H1A (I 39511) Exchange
0 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act II 862 Black Lung (923) 0 875 Customer Challengea 190 Other Contract Product Liability CI 385 Property Damage 0 720 Labor/Mgrnt. Relations II 863 DIWCID1WW (405(g)) 12 USC 3410
0 195 Contract Product Liability CI 360 Other Personal Product Liability 0 730 Labor/MgmtReporting II 864 S SID Title XV I 0 890 OtherStatutory Actions
a 196 Franchise Injury n
& Disclosure Act CI 865 R.SI (405(g)) 0 891 Agricultural Acts
CIVILRIGHTS -PRISONER PETITIONS: 0 740 Railway LaborAct: FEDERAL TAX SUITS 0 892 Economic Stabilization
0 210 Land Condemnation 0 441 Voting 0 510 Motions to Vacate 0 790 Other LaborLitigation 0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 0 893 Enviroranental Matters
0 220 Foreclosure 0 442 Employment Sentence 0 791 Erma]. Ret Inc. or Defendant) 0 894 Energy Allocation Act
0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 443 Housing/ Habeas Corpus: Security Act 0 871 1RS---Third Party 0 895 Freedom of Information
0 240 Torts to Land Accommodations 0 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act
0 245 Tort Product Liability 0 444 Welfare 0 535 Death Penalty s., IMMIGRATION' a 900Appeal of Fee Determin
0 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities 0 540 Mandamus & Other n 462 Naturalization Application Under Equal Access
Employment 0 550 Civil Rights CI 46311abeas Corpus to Justice
0 446 Amer. :iv/Disabilities 0 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee 0 950 Constitutionality of
Other 0 465 Other Immigration State Statutes
0 440 Other Civil Rights Actiorts
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only) Appeal to Dis
I Original El 2 Removed from 11 3 Remanded from .11 4 Reinstated or nTransferred from
El 6 Multidistrict 7Aidg from
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened.another district Litigation Magistrate(sneciM Judgment
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute underwhich you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VI . CAUSE OF ACTION 11341ief d'e 'sCrin ' cYause :
VII. REQUESTED IN 0 'CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 G reater than $75, 000JURY DEMAND: )o Yes CI No
VIII, RELATED CASE(S)(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT ti AMOUNT APPLYING 1FP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE