This document is a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and other insurance companies against National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and various insurer defendants. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment determining the rights and obligations of the parties regarding liability insurance policies issued to Amtrak from 1972 to 1986 for environmental claims, asbestos claims, and health hazard claims that Amtrak has demanded indemnification for from the insurers. Many of the sites involved in the environmental claims and a substantial portion of Amtrak's liability are located in New York.
Descrição original:
Título original
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS et al v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION et al complaint
This document is a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and other insurance companies against National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and various insurer defendants. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment determining the rights and obligations of the parties regarding liability insurance policies issued to Amtrak from 1972 to 1986 for environmental claims, asbestos claims, and health hazard claims that Amtrak has demanded indemnification for from the insurers. Many of the sites involved in the environmental claims and a substantial portion of Amtrak's liability are located in New York.
This document is a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and other insurance companies against National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and various insurer defendants. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment determining the rights and obligations of the parties regarding liability insurance policies issued to Amtrak from 1972 to 1986 for environmental claims, asbestos claims, and health hazard claims that Amtrak has demanded indemnification for from the insurers. Many of the sites involved in the environmental claims and a substantial portion of Amtrak's liability are located in New York.
) CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS, ) LONDON, ACCIDENT & CASUALTY CO., ACCIDENT ) & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF ) WINTERTHUR, ACCIDENT & CASUALTY ) INSURANCE COMPANY OF WINTERTHUR ) (NO. 2A/C), ACCIDENT & CASUALTY INSURANCE ) COMPANY OF WINTERTHUR (NO. 3 A/C), ) AEGON NV FORMERLY AGO SCHADEVEZEKERING ) MAATSCHAPPIJ NV, AG DE 1830 COMPAGNIE ) BELGE DASSURANCES GENERALES INCENDIE ) ACCIDENTS ET RISQUES DIVERS SA, AMERICAN ) HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, ) AMSTERDAM LONDON VERZEKERING ) MAATSCHAPPIJ NV, ANCON INSURANCE ) COMPANY (UK) LIMITED, ARGONAUT ) NORTHWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI SPA (UK BRANCH), ) BISHOPSGATE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ) BRITAMCO POOL, CNA REINSURANCE COMPANY, ) CNA REINSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ) CORNHILL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ) CREDIT DE NAMUR, DELTA-LLOYD NON-LIFE ) INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DELTA-LLOYD ) SCHADEVERZEKERING NV, DILIGENTIA, ) EUROPEESCHE VERZEKERING MAATSCHAPPIJ ) NV, EXCESS INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ) GRESHAM FIRE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE ) SOCIETY LIMITED, GRESHAM INSURANCE ) SOCIETY LIMITED, HELVETIA-ACCIDENT ) SWISS INSURANCE COMPANY (AS PART OF ) GIBBON E GROUP), HARPER INSURANCE LTD ) F/K/A/ TUREGUM INS CO., INSTITUTO DE ) REASSEGUROS DO BRASIL (IRG) - LONDON ) BRANCH, INTERLLOYD VERZEKERING ) MAASTSCHAPPIJ NV, KONING ) & BOEKE VAN 1819, LA BELGIQUE, ) L'ASSICURAZIONI D'ITALIA, ) LE ASSICURAZIONI D'ITALIA SPA, LES ) ASSURANCES GENERALES DE FRANCE, LES ) PROPRIETAIRES REUNIS S.A. D. ASSURANCES ) I.A.R.D., L'ETOILE, LONDON & EDINBUGH )
ECF Case 14 Civ. 4717
COMPLAINT Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 52 PageID #: 1 -2-
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LONDON ) AND EDINBURGH GENERAL INSURANCE ) COMPANY LIMITED, MAAS LLOYD NV ) SCHADEVERZEKERINGSMAATSCHAPPIJ , ) MERCATOR ALGEMENE VERZEKERINGS ) MAATSCHAPPIJ NV, N.V. ROTTERDAMSE ) ASSURANTIEKAS, N.V. VERZ MIJ DE NOODERN, ) NAMUR ASSURANCES DU CREDIT, NATIONAL ) CASUALTY COMPANY, NATIONAL CASUALTY ) COMPANY OF AMERICA LIMITED, NISSAN FIRE & ) MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, ) NOORHOLLAND BRANDW, NORWICH UNION ) FIRE INSURANCE SOCIETY LIMITED, ) PROVIDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ) RHEINLAND VERSICHERUNGS AG, ROYALE ) BELGE SA, ROYAL NEDERLAND ) SCHADEVERZEKERING NV, ROYALE BELGE ) INCENDIE REASSURANCE S.A., SIMCOE & ERIE ) GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ST ) KATHERINE INSURANCE COMPANY PLC, ) TAISHO MARINE & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY ) LIMITED, TERRA NOVA INSURANCE COMPANY, ) THE SUMITOMO MARINE AND FIRE INSURANCE ) COMPANY LIMITED, UNION AMERICA ) INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ) WINTERTHUR SWISS INSURANCE COMPANY, ) WURTTEMBERGISCH FEUERVERSICHERRUNG AG, ) YASUDA FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY ) (UK) LIMITED, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER ) CORPORATION; ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY; ) ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN ) HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN ) INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN ) REINSURANCE COMPANY; ARGONAUT ) INSURANCE COMPANY; ASSUBEL ACCIDENTS ET ) DOMMAGES SA; ASTRA S.A. INSURANCE AND ) REINSURANCE COMPANY AS SUCCESSOR TO ADAS ) STATE INSURANCE INSTITUTE; ATLANTICA ) INSURANCE COMPANY; BANCO DE SEGUROS DEL ) ESTADO; BANDEIRANTE; BELLEFONTE INSURANCE ) Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 2 of 52 PageID #: 2 -3-
COMPANY (US); BISON INSURANCE COMPANY ) LIMITED; BRITTANY INSURANCE COMPANY ) LIMITED; CALIFORNIA UNION INSURANCE ) COMPANY; CIGNA; COMPAGNIE BELGE ) DASSURANCES CREDIT S.A.; COMPANHIA DE ) SEGUROS IMPERIO; COMPANIA DE SEGUROS LA ) REPUBLICA S.A.; CONTINENTAL INSURANCE ) COMPANY AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO HARBOR ) INSURANCE COMPANY AND PACIFIC INSURANCE ) COMPANY; THE DOMINION INSURANCE COMPANY ) LIMITED; EURINCO ALLGEMEINE VERSICHERUNGS ) AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; EVANSTON INSURANCE ) COMPANY; FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ) FIREMANS FUND INSURANCE COMPANY; GESB- ) GRUPO EMPRESAS SEGURADORAS; GRANITE STATE ) INSURANCE COMPANY; THE HARTFORD ACCIDENT ) AND INDEMNITY COMPANY; HASSNEH INSURANCE ) COMPANY OF ISRAEL LIMITED; INSTITUTO ) NACIONALI DE REASEGUROS; INSURANCE ) COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; INSURANCE ) COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; ) INTERSTATE REINSURANCE CORPORATION; ) INTERNATIONAL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE ) COMPANY; KOREAN REINSURANCE COMPANY; ) LANDMARK INSURANCE COMPANY; LEXINGTON ) INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL MUTUAL ) INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL UNION FIRE ) INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, ) PENNSYLVANIA; NORTHBROOK INSURANCE ) COMPANY; THE PEOPLES INSURANCE COMPANY ) OF CHINA; RAILROAD ASSOCIATION INSURANCE ) LIMITED; REAFIANZADORA Y REASEGURADORA ) DE AMERICA; ROBERTO FEVRE; SHAND MORAHAN ) & CO.; STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY ) LIMITED; VERA CRUZ INSURANCE COMPANY; ) WAUSAU INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITERS; ) YOSEMITE INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1-40, ) ) Defendants. ) )
Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 3 of 52 PageID #: 3 -4-
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
Preliminary Statement 1. This is a declaratory judgment action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202, whereby Plaintiffs seek a determination of the respective rights and obligations of the Plaintiffs and of Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and of the Insurer Defendants (identified herein) in connection with a number of liability insurance policies issued to Amtrak during a period beginning on or about J une 1, 1972 and ending in 1986 (the Policies) with respect to claims that arise in substantial part in this federal judicial district, and for other necessary and proper relief. 2. Plaintiffs are insurers who, during the period in question, did business in the London Insurance Market and who issued or participated in that is, subscribed to an agreed percentage share of the risk of one or more of the Policies. Plaintiffs are referred to herein collectively as the London Market Insurers and are listed in the caption and in Attachment A hereto, which forms a part of this Complaint and is incorporated in this Paragraph 2 by reference. 3. Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation, known as Amtrak, is a corporation created by federal statute and headquartered in Washington, D.C. Amtrak operates passenger railroad service throughout the United States, and has substantial operations in the State of New York and in this federal judicial district. 4. Defendants other than Amtrak are referred to herein as Insurer Defendants and are insurance companies which insured Amtrak and are not named as Plaintiffs herein. Insurer Defendants are listed in the caption and in Attachment B hereto, which forms a part of this Complaint and is incorporated in this Paragraph 4 by reference. A significant number of the Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 4 of 52 PageID #: 4 -5-
Insurer Defendants are New York corporations and/or have their principal place of business in New York. 5. The Policies which Plaintiffs issued or on which they participated are identified in Attachment C hereto. Certain Insurer Defendants also issued or participated on those Policies. Certain other Insurer Defendants issued or participated on the Policies identified in Attachment D hereto. Some of the Policies on Attachment D are alleged by Amtrak and have not been shown to exist. Attachment C and Attachment D each form a part of this Complaint and are incorporated in Paragraph 5 by reference. 6. Each Plaintiff and each Insurer Defendant, by its issuance of or participation on one or more of the Policies, severally and not jointly contracted with Amtrak to provide liability insurance in accordance with the terms, conditions, limits and exclusions of such Policy or Policies. 7. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that it is the subject of claims asserting that Amtrak is responsible for costs of investigating and remediating environmental contamination at numerous sites in different states (the Environmental Claims) and has demanded indemnification for such costs. According to Amtrak, a substantial portion of its liability for addressing Environmental Claims arises from sites in New York and in this federal judicial district. The Environmental Claims are comprised of claims that have been resolved; claims that are currently pending; and claims that may be made against Amtrak in the future. 8. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that it is the subject of claims asserting personal injury or bodily injury to individual natural persons caused by exposure to asbestos or by exposure to other allegedly harmful substances or conditions (the Asbestos Claims and Health Hazard Claims, respectively), and has demanded payment of indemnity and defense Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 5 of 52 PageID #: 5 -6-
costs with respect to these claims. The Asbestos Claims and the Health Hazard Claims are comprised of claims that have been resolved; claims that are currently pending; and claims that may be filed against Amtrak in the future. 9. During certain periods over approximately the last decade, Plaintiffs have engaged in various communications with Amtrak regarding coverage alleged by Amtrak for the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and the Health Hazard Claims. 10. These discussions have not resulted in any resolution of issues between Amtrak and the Plaintiffs. 11. A standstill agreement was in place for many years between the Plaintiffs and Amtrak. Amtrak recently notified Plaintiffs that it was terminating the standstill agreement. At the time of the filing of this Complaint, the standstill had expired. 12. There is an actual and judiciable controversy between the Plaintiffs and Amtrak regarding the alleged present obligation of the Plaintiffs to make payments to Amtrak pursuant to the Policies and regarding the application of the Policies to anticipated future obligations and expenditures of Amtrak with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and the Health Hazard Claims. 13. Amtrak has reported to Plaintiffs that the amounts it has paid and expects to pay are no less than tens of millions of dollars in total with respect to the claims at issue. In providing such information about the magnitude of the losses sustained and expected losses, Amtrak has requested that Plaintiffs afford it confidential treatment so far as possible. Accordingly, Plaintiffs do not include detailed cost or projected cost figures in this Complaint in order to permit Amtrak an opportunity to seek protection for that information if it so chooses. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 6 of 52 PageID #: 6 -7-
14. Resolution of the issues between Amtrak and the Plaintiffs will require the Court to apply the policy wordings in light of the facts of the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and the Health Hazard Claims. 15. The declarations and rulings that the Plaintiffs seek in this case will affect the allocation of liability, if any, among many different insurance policies and will affect the rights and obligations, if any, among the various insurers including Plaintiffs and Insurer Defendants that have issued or participated on insurance policies under which Amtrak has asserted a right to coverage. 16. Plaintiffs ask the Court to determine how much, if anything, each of them (and/or the Insurer Defendants) may presently owe to Amtrak; and how to interpret their policies going forward with respect to currently pending and expected future claims against Amtrak. 17. Plaintiffs aver and seek a declaration that: (i) they have no current obligation to make any payment to Amtrak and that in the absence of satisfaction of certain predicates to coverage, including certain conditions precedent, and due to the application of certain exclusions, there is no coverage owing under any of the Policies; and (ii) they have no current obligation to make payments which in total amount to tens of millions of dollars and will have no future obligations to pay similar amounts. An actual and justiciable controversy thus exists between and among the parties. The Parties 18. Plaintiffs London Market Insurers are comprised of those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, and those Certain London Market Companies that subscribed to the Policies for their respective several shares of the risks insured by the insurance policies listed in Attachment C to this Complaint. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 7 of 52 PageID #: 7 -8-
19. Plaintiffs Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London are natural persons who are or were members of underwriting syndicates which at the time the Policies were issued did conduct business at the insurance marketplace known as Lloyds, London, which is chartered by an act of Parliament. Only such persons who, each for his own part and not for another, subscribed through his membership in a syndicate to one or more of the policies of insurance listed in Attachment C hereto are included in the term Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London as used herein. The syndicates to which such persons belonged are identified in Attachment A hereto. 20. Plaintiffs Certain London Market Companies are comprised of certain insurance companies, each of which is organized under the laws of foreign states and has its principal place of business outside the United States. Each such company, as listed in Attachment A hereto, subscribed for its own part and not for any other to one or more of the policies of insurance listed in Attachment C hereto. 21. Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation, known as Amtrak, is a corporation organized pursuant to federal statute with its principal place of business in the District of Columbia. The United States owns more than one-half of the capital stock of Amtrak. 22. Defendant The Dominion Insurance Company Limited is a corporation organized under the laws of England and Wales with its principal place of business in England. The Dominion Insurance Company Limited severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that The Dominion Insurance Company Limited may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 8 of 52 PageID #: 8 -9-
23. Defendant Stronghold Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of England and Wales with its principal place of business in England. Stronghold Insurance Company severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Stronghold may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 24. Defendant Allianz Insurance Company, now known as Allianz Global Risks US Insurance, is a corporation organized under the laws of California with its principal place of business in Illinois. On information and belief, Allianz Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Allianz Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 25. Defendant Allstate Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois with its principal place of business in Illinois. On information and belief, Allstate Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Allstate Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 26. Defendant American Home Assurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with its principal place of business in New York. On information and belief, American Home Assurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that American Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 9 of 52 PageID #: 9 -10-
Home Assurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 27. Defendant American Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio with its principal place of business in California. On information and belief, American Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that American Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 28. Defendant American Reinsurance Company, now known as Munich Re Group Incorporated, is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in New J ersey. On information and belief, American Reinsurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that American Reinsurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 29. Defendant Argonaut Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois with its principal place of business in Texas. On information and belief, Argonaut Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Argonaut Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 10 of 52 PageID #: 10 -11-
30. Defendant ASSUBEL Accidents et Dommages SA is a corporation organized under the laws of Belgium with its principal place of business in Belgium. ASSUBEL Accidents et Dommages SA severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that ASSUBEL Accidents et Dommages SA may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 31. On information and belief, ASTRA S.A., a Romania corporation, is the successor to ADAS State Insurance Institute. On information and belief, ADAS State Insurance Institute participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that ADAS State Insurance Institute may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 32. Defendant Atlantica Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Sweden with its principal place of business in Sweden. Atlantica Insurance Company severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Atlantica Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 33. Upon information and belief Defendant Banco De Seguros Del Estado is a corporation organized under the laws of Uruguay with its principal place of business in Uruguay. Banco De Seguros Del Estado severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Banco De Seguros Del Estado may have Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 11 of 52 PageID #: 11 -12-
obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 34. On information and belief Defendant Bandeirante has or had a place of business in England. Bandeirante severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Bandeirante may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 35. Defendant Bellefonte Insurance Company (US) is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio with its principal place of business in Ohio. Bellefonte Insurance Company (US) severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Bellefonte Insurance Company (US) may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 36. Defendant Bison Insurance Company Limited is a corporation organized under the laws of South Carolina with its principal place of business in South Carolina. Bison Insurance Company Limited severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Bison Insurance Company Limited may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 37. Defendant Brittany Insurance Company Limited is a corporation organized under the laws of Bermuda with its principal place of business in Bermuda. Brittany Insurance Company Limited severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Brittany Insurance Company Limited may have Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 12 of 52 PageID #: 12 -13-
obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 38. Defendant California Union Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of California with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. On information and belief, California Union Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that California Union Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 39. Defendant CIGNA is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. On information and belief, CIGNA issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that CIGNA may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 40. On information and belief Defendant Compagnie Belge DAssurances Credit S.A. is a corporation organized under the laws of Belgium with its principal place of business in Belgium. Compagnie Belge DAssurances Credit S.A. severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Compagnie Belge DAssurances Credit S.A. may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 13 of 52 PageID #: 13 -14-
41. On information and belief Defendant Companhia De Seguros Imperio is a corporation organized under the laws of Portugal with its principal place of business in Portugal. Companhia De Seguros Imperio severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Companhia De Seguros Imperio may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 42. Defendant Compania de Seguros La Republica S.A. is a corporation organized under the laws of Chile with its principal place of business in England. On information and belief, Compania de Seguros La Republica S.A. issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Compania de Seguros La Republica S.A. may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 43. Defendant Continental Insurance Company as successor in interest to certain policies issued by Harbor Insurance Company and Pacific Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Illinois. Harbor Insurance Company and Pacific Insurance Company each severally subscribed to one or more of the policies listed in Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Continental Insurance Company, as successor in interest to certain policies issued by Harbor Insurance Company and Pacific Insurance Company, may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 14 of 52 PageID #: 14 -15-
44. Upon information and belief Defendant Eurinco Allgemeine Versicherungs Aktiengesellschaft is a corporation organized under the laws of Germany with its principal place of business in Germany. Eurinco Allgemeine Versicherungs Aktiengesellschaft severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Eurinco Allgemeine Versicherungs Aktiengesellschaft may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 45. Defendant Evanston Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with its principal place of business in Illinois. On information and belief, Evanston Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Evanston Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 46. Defendant Firemans Fund Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of California with its principal place of business in California. On information and belief, Firemans Fund Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Firemans Fund Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 47. Defendant First State Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Connecticut with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. On information and belief, First State Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 15 of 52 PageID #: 15 -16-
on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that First State Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 48. On information and belief Defendant GESB-Grupo Empresas Seguradoras is a corporation organized under the laws of Brazil with its principal place of business in Brazil. GESB-Grupo Empresas Seguradoras severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that GESB-Grupo Empresas Seguradoras may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 49. Defendant Granite State Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in New York. On information and belief, Granite State Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Granite State Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 50. Defendant The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Connecticut with its principal place of business in Connecticut. On information and belief, The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company may have obligations under one or Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 16 of 52 PageID #: 16 -17-
more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 51. Defendant Hassneh Insurance Company of Israel Limited is a corporation organized under the laws of Israel with its principal place of business in Israel. Hassneh Insurance Company of Israel Limited severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Hassneh Insurance Company of Israel Limited may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 52. On information and belief Defendant Instituto Nacionali de Reaseguros is a corporation organized under the laws of Argentina with its principal place of business in Argentina. Instituto Nacionali de Reaseguros severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Instituto Nacionali de Reaseguros may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 53. Defendant Insurance Company of North America is a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. On information and belief, Insurance Company of North America issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Insurance Company of North America may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 17 of 52 PageID #: 17 -18-
54. Defendant Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania is a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in New York. On information and belief, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 55. Defendant Interstate Reinsurance Corporation is a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois with its principal place of business in Illinois. On information and belief, Interstate Reinsurance Corporation issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Interstate Reinsurance Corporation may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 56. Defendant International Surplus Lines Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois with its principal place of business in Illinois. On information and belief, International Surplus Lines Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that International Surplus Lines Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 57. Defendant Korean Reinsurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Korea with its principal place of business in Korea. Korean Reinsurance Company Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 18 of 52 PageID #: 18 -19-
severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Korean Reinsurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 58. Defendant Landmark Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of California with its principal place of business in New York. On information and belief, Landmark Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Landmark Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 59. Defendant Lexington Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in New York. On information and belief, Lexington Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Lexington Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 60. Defendant National Mutual Insurance Company, now known as Celina Insurance Group, is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio with its principal place of business in Ohio. On information and belief, National Mutual Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that National Mutual Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 19 of 52 PageID #: 19 -20-
61. Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in New York. On information and belief, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 62. Defendant Northbrook Insurance Company, now known as Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois with its principal place of business in Illinois. On information and belief, Northbrook Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Northbrook Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 63. Defendant The Peoples Insurance Company of China is a corporation organized under the laws of China with its principal place of business in China. The Peoples Insurance Company of China severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that The Peoples Insurance Company of China may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 64. Defendant Railroad Association Insurance Limited is a corporation organized under the laws of Bermuda with its principal place of business in Bermuda. On information and Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 20 of 52 PageID #: 20 -21-
belief, Railroad Association Insurance Limited issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Railroad Association Insurance Limited may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 65. On information and belief Defendant Reafianzadora y Reaseguradora de America has or had a place of business in England. Reafianzadora y Reaseguradora de America severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Reafianzadora y Reaseguradora de America may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 66. On information and belief Defendant Roberto Fevre has or had a place of business in England. Roberto Fevre severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Roberto Fevre may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 67. Defendant Shand Morahan & Co., now known as Markel International Insurance Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois with its principal place of business in Illinois. On information and belief, Shand Morahan & Co. issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Shand Morahan & Co. may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 21 of 52 PageID #: 21 -22-
68. On information and belief Defendant Vera Cruz Insurance Company has or had a place of business in England. Vera Cruz Insurance Company severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Vera Cruz Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 69. Defendant Wausau International Underwriters is a corporation organized under the laws of Wisconsin with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. On information and belief, Wausau International Underwriters issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Wausau International Underwriters may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 70. Defendant Yosemite Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Indiana with its principal place of business in Indiana. On information and belief, Yosemite Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Yosemite Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 71. The Defendants identified in Paragraphs 22 through 70 above are herein collectively referred to as the Insurer Defendants. 72. In addition to the Insurer Defendants, on information and belief Glacier General Assurance Company, Integrity Insurance Company, Midland Insurance Company, Mutual Fire, Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 22 of 52 PageID #: 22 -23-
Marine and Inland Insurance Company, Northeastern Fire Insurance Company, Reliance Insurance Company, Signal Insurance Company, and Transportation Mutual Insurance Company also issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. However, on information and belief, these insurers, and other insurers who issued or participated on one or more policies listed on Attachment C or Attachment D, currently are or have been the subject of insolvency or liquidation proceedings. These insurers are not named as defendants to this action. On information and belief, none of the Insurer Defendants identified herein currently is or has been the subject of insolvency or liquidation proceedings. Plaintiffs do not intend to name as a defendant any insurance company that is or has been the subject of insolvency or liquidation proceedings. 73. Defendants Does 1 through 20 are additional insurers, not yet identified, which issued or participated on insurance policies issued to Amtrak and as to which Amtrak may have asserted that they may have obligations with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims. 74. Defendants Does 21 through 40 are entities named as additional insureds (or additional assureds) under one or more of the policies of insurance identified in Attachment C or Attachment D, not yet identified, and may have asserted or may assert rights to insurance coverage under one or more of said policies. Jurisdiction and Venue 75. This is a civil action asserting a claim against a corporation that was incorporated pursuant to an Act of Congress, and as to which the United States owns more than one-half of the capital stock. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory J udgment Act, 28 Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 23 of 52 PageID #: 23 -24-
U.S.C. 2201-2202, as to the parties rights and obligations with respect to certain claims under the Policies at issue. 76. This Court thus has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1349. 77. Venue in this federal judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because, as pleaded in detail in the paragraphs that follow, a substantial portion of the events, acts, or omissions giving rise to this action herein took place at Amtrak facilities located in this federal judicial district. Alternatively, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1) or (b)(3). Facts 78. Plaintiffs allege facts in the following areas: the insurance policies at issue; the Environmental Claims; the Asbestos Claims; the Health Hazard Claims; and the presentation to Plaintiffs of claims prior to the filing of this action. Insurance Policies 79. The Policies are listed in Attachment C and in Attachment D hereto. Presentation to Plaintiffs of Claims 80. By letters dated J une 28, 2006, and J uly 11, 2006, Amtrak for the first time sought indemnification from Plaintiffs for alleged losses and expenses purportedly associated with the Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, and Health Hazard Claims. 81. In response to Amtraks 2006 letters, and at all times since, Plaintiffs have reserved their rights to deny coverage and have requested information upon which to evaluate the identified claims. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 24 of 52 PageID #: 24 -25-
82. Amtrak has ignored Plaintiffs request for additional information about certain of these claims, or has provided insufficient information to permit Plaintiffs to make coverage determinations. 83. Amtrak has provided information to Plaintiffs indicating that it has entered settlement agreements, consent orders, and/or otherwise committed to make remedial efforts and voluntary payments with respect to the Environmental Claims without notice to Plaintiffs and without Plaintiffs participation or consent. 84. Amtrak asserts that it has incurred or expects to incur losses of many tens of millions of dollars associated with the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and the Health Hazard Claims. The limited information provided by Amtrak relating to the claims is summarized below. Environmental Claims 85. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that it has incurred significant liabilities for environmental response costs, or faces future liabilities for such costs, associated with investigation and remediation efforts at numerous sites located throughout the United States, which include the following: Long Island City Vent Project, Newtown Creek Superfund Site, Penn Station, Rennselaer Facilities, and Sunnyside Yard in New York; Operating Industries and Redondo J unction Maintenance Facility in California; 23 Barry Place, New Haven (Cedar Hill Maintenance of Way (MOW) Base, New Haven Cogen Plant, New Haven General Maintenance Facility, New Haven Motor Storage and West Classification Yard in Connecticut; Delaware River Basin, Finger/Krieger, Wilmington Shop/Wilmington Refueling Facility, Wilmington West Yard in Delaware; Ivy City Yard in Washington, DC; Sanford Auto-Train Facility in Florida; Lumber Street Yard and Springfield Station Substations in Illinois; Beech Grove in Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 25 of 52 PageID #: 25 -26-
Iowa; Repair Shop in Louisiana; Boston Engine Terminal, Readville Five Yard and South Hampton Yard in Massachusetts; Amtrak Adams MW Base, Amtrak Hunter Fuel Facility, Amtrak Property I, Amtrak Property II, Amtrak Rail Yard (Durant Yard), Amtrak Substation #40 Waverly, Lightman Drum, Metro Park, Milham Yard/WR Grace, National Railroad Rahway Substation #39 and Trenton Track #5 in New J ersey; and 30th Street Penn Station/Penn Coach Yard (Race Street), Berks Associates Site/Douglassville Disposal, Downington MOW Base, Paoli Rail Yard, Penn Coach Yard and Tank Car Site in Pennsylvania. There may be additional sites unknown to Plaintiffs at which Amtrak may have or may in the future incur liability. Plaintiffs seek a declaration with respect to any such sites whose existence becomes known to them during the pendency of this litigation. 86. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that a substantial portion of its asserted environmental exposure is associated with three sites, two of which are located in New York. Based on information Amtrak has provided, the Sunnyside Yard site located in Queens, New York, which is within this federal judicial district, presents the single greatest environmental liability to Amtrak. Another significant exposure is the Pennsylvania Station site located in Manhattan. 87. Based on information Amtrak has provided to Plaintiffs in connection with the Environmental Claims, Amtrak has incurred, or expects to incur, greater liability for environmental response costs in the State of New York than in any other jurisdiction in the country. 88. On August 22, 2012, Amtrak provided Plaintiffs with an Update on Environmental Claims, including a table in which Amtrak purported to identify its past costs at each site as of that date. Amtrak informed Plaintiffs that approximately 44 percent of such costs Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 26 of 52 PageID #: 26 -27-
had been incurred at the Sunnyside Yard, Penn Station, and Long Island City Vent Project sites in New York. Thus, according to Amtraks most recent update, more costs have been incurred by Amtrak at sites in New York than in any other jurisdiction more than twice as much as the next closest jurisdiction. 89. The three sites presenting the largest environmental exposure to Amtrak are described in the paragraphs that follow. Sunnyside Yard, Queens, New York 90. The Sunnyside Yard Site is a 100-acre railroad maintenance and storage facility located in Queens, New York. 91. According to information provided by Amtrak, the Sunnyside Yard Site has widespread contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals. 92. Amtrak asserts that it is currently involved in an extensive, multi-year effort to remove PCB contamination at the Sunnyside Yard Site. 93. The Sunnyside Yard Site was for many decades owned by Penn Central Transportation Company (Penn Central), now known as American Premier Underwriters (APU). Publicly available information indicates that on April 1, 1976 the Sunnyside Yard Site was acquired by the Consolidated Rail Corporation, which conveyed it to Amtrak on the same day. 94. Amtrak asserts that it has been investigating possible pollution at the Sunnyside Yard Site since at least the mid-1980s. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 27 of 52 PageID #: 27 -28-
95. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NY-DEC) has designated the Sunnyside Yard Site a Class 2 Inactive Hazardous Waste Site as a result of PCBs and other hazardous substance contamination. 96. The Sunnyside Yard Site was divided into six operable units and the NY-DEC has issued a Record of Decision with respect to each operable unit. 97. Amtrak asserts that it has implemented remediation efforts pursuant to a 1989 Order on Consent and/or the NY-DECs Record of Decision at one or more of the operable units, including, according to Amtrak, extensive cleanup efforts in 1998 to remove PCB contaminated sediment. 98. At no time has Amtrak given Plaintiffs an opportunity to participate in negotiations with NY-DEC regarding investigation or remediation efforts at the Sunnyside Yard Site. Plaintiffs are aware of no suits filed by NY-DEC against Amtrak seeking to recover amounts relating to contamination at the Sunnyside Yard Site. 99. On or about September 26, 2007, Amtrak entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with APU (successor to Penn Central) that purports to resolve and settle Amtraks and APUs respective responsibilities for costs associated with investigation and remediation efforts at the Sunnyside Yard Site. At no time has Amtrak given Plaintiffs an opportunity to participate in any settlement discussions or negotiations with APU regarding the Sunnyside Yard Site. 100. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that its past and projected future costs relating to environmental investigation and remediation at its Sunnyside Yard Site total many millions of dollars as of September 30, 2011. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 28 of 52 PageID #: 28 -29-
Penn Station, Manhattan, NY 101. The Pennsylvania Station (Penn Station) Site is located in New York City in the borough of Manhattan. 102. Amtrak asserts that it is involved in a multi-year project to dispose of PCB contaminated soil during track work at the Penn Station Site. 103. Plaintiffs are aware of no suits that have been filed against Amtrak relating to contamination at the Penn Station Site. 104. Amtrak has informed the Plaintiffs that its past and projected future costs relating to environmental investigation and remediation at its Penn Station Site total many millions of dollars as of September 30, 2011. Wilmington Shops, Wilmington DE 105. The Wilmington Shops Site consists of a former fueling facility and a maintenance facility located in Wilmington, Delaware that encompasses approximately 85 acres. 106. Amtrak has conducted several environmental investigations and remedial activities at the Wilmington Shops Site. 107. The Wilmington Shops Site, originally constructed in 1903, primarily was used for the maintenance, fueling and servicing of locomotives and passenger train cars first with coal later with diesel fuel, lubricating oil, and sand. In 1995, fueling operations were moved from the former fueling facility to the maintenance facility and the former fueling facility is now used as storage for passenger railcars and as a staging location site for maintenance-of-way and other equipment. 108. The Wilmington Shops Site was formerly owned by Penn Central until it was purchased by Amtrak in April 1976. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 29 of 52 PageID #: 29 -30-
109. No later than the early 1980s, Amtrak became aware of PCB contamination at the Wilmington Shops Site. Amtrak has asserted that in the mid-1980s it undertook major assessments and remediation efforts to remove PCB contaminated soil. 110. The Wilmington Shops Site was divided into two operable units one designed to address contamination concerns at the former fueling facility and the other to address contamination concerns at the maintenance facility. 111. According to information Amtrak has provided to Plaintiffs, it has been involved in preparing and implementing remediation plans for the Wilmington Shops Site and has signed a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) to remediate PCB and petroleum soil contamination at the Wilmington maintenance facility and to initiate erosion control measures. 112. At no time has Amtrak given Plaintiffs an opportunity to participate in any negotiations with DNREC regarding investigation or remediation efforts at the Wilmington Shops Site. 113. Plaintiffs are aware of no suits filed by DNREC against Amtrak seeking to recover amounts relating to contamination at the Wilmington Shops Site. 114. Amtrak has informed the Plaintiffs that its past and projected future costs relating to environmental investigation and remediation at its Wilmington Shops Site total many millions of dollars as of September 30, 2011. Asbestos Claims and Health Hazard Claims 115. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that, since 1972, it has been named as a defendant in lawsuits seeking damages for bodily injury from alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos- containing products such as insulation for boilers, steam generator, steam pipes, and electrical Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 30 of 52 PageID #: 30 -31-
systems; friction product in machinery and brakes; gaskets, rope; packing materials; and firewalls. 116. Based on publicly available information, hundreds of these claims have been filed in New York courts and it appears that a substantial portion of Amtraks liability for the Asbestos Claims arises in New York. 117. In connection with Asbestos Claims, Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that it has made indemnity payments and defense payments which combined are in the many millions of dollars, and that it expects to make additional indemnity and defense payments in the future. 118. Amtrak is a defendant in various categories of Health Hazard Claims. 119. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that, beginning in the 1970s, it has been named as a defendant in lawsuits seeking damages for bodily injury allegedly from the cumulative effect of repetitive and continuous physical exertion (repetitive stress injury or RSI claims). 120. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that, in connection with RSI claims, it has made indemnity payments and defense payments which combined are in the many millions of dollars, and that it expects to make additional indemnity and defense payments in the future. 121. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that beginning in 1972, it has been named as a defendant in lawsuits seeking damages for hearing loss from alleged chronic exposure to loud noise in the workplace (hearing loss claims). 122. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that in connection with hearing loss claims it has made indemnity payments and defense payments which combined are in the many millions of dollars, and that it expects to make additional indemnity and defense payments in the future. 123. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that beginning in 1988 it has been named as a defendant in lawsuits seeking damages for bodily injury from alleged exposure to hazardous or Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 31 of 52 PageID #: 31 -32-
deleterious substances in the workplace such as solvents, fuels and other chemicals, and airborne contaminants such as diesel fumes (deleterious substance claims). 124. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that, in connection with deleterious substance claims, it has made indemnity payments and defense payments which combined are in the millions of dollars, and that it expects to make additional indemnity and defense payments in the future. Causes of Action First Cause of Action: For a Declaratory Judgment as to Their Obligations Under the Policies
125. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 124 as if set forth fully herein. 126. The Policies identified in Attachment C and in Attachment D contain various terms, conditions, limitations, and definitions which Amtrak (or any other assured under the Policies) must show are satisfied in order for there to be insurance coverage for losses and expenses Amtrak (or any other assured under the Policies) has assertedly incurred or will in the future incur in connection with the Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, or Health Hazard Claims. 127. Further, the Policies contain exclusions which preclude coverage in certain circumstances. 128. None of the Policies requires the Plaintiffs to indemnify or otherwise provide coverage to Amtrak or any other assured under the policies with respect to the Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, or Health Hazard Claims for one or more the reasons set forth in Paragraph 129 below, and for other reasons based on the terms, conditions, definitions, limitations, and exclusions of the Policies. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 32 of 52 PageID #: 32 -33-
129. The purpose of this Complaint is to seek a declaration of the Plaintiffs rights and obligations, if any, under the Policies with respect to all insurance coverage and other issues relating to the Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, and Health Hazard Claims. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment with respect to the obligation, if any, of each Policy to respond to each environmental claim in accordance with the terms, conditions, limits, and exclusions of each policy. The following insurance coverage issues are among those with respect to which Plaintiffs seek a declaration. Omission of an issue from the following list is not a waiver of Plaintiffs right to seek a declaration with respect to such issue, nor is it intended to remove from the scope of this action any issue the determination of which is necessary for a comprehensive resolution of the controversy among the parties. In all instances below, the precise wording of each policy is the controlling contractual language and is not replaced or modified by any paraphrase or summary of the coverage issue as follows: a. With respect to any amount claimed, it is Amtraks burden to show as a predicate to any insurance coverage obligation that Amtraks liability is a result of bodily injury or property damage arising out of an occurrence caused by or growing out of Amtraks operations, or any services or operations incidental thereto. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden. b. With respect to any amount claimed, it is Amtraks burden to show as a predicate to any insurance coverage obligation that Amtrak is liable for and has actually paid the amount claimed and has deducted all recoveries, salvages, and collectible claims from other insurers. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 33 of 52 PageID #: 33 -34-
c. With respect to any amount claimed, it is Amtraks burden to show as a predicate to any coverage obligation that the applicable self-insured retention (SIR) and any and all underlying policies have been properly exhausted. Amtraks showing of such exhaustion must include, without limitation, a determination of the number of occurrences giving rise to the amount claimed, the amounts actually paid, and a determination that each such amount was paid as damages (or, under certain Policies, as compensation) for a loss covered by the Policy terms. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden. d. With respect to any amount claimed, it is Amtraks burden to show as a predicate to any coverage obligation that there was an occurrence, within the meaning of the Policies, giving rise to bodily injury or property damage during the term of the policy. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden. e. With respect to any amount claimed, it is Amtraks burden to show as a predicate to coverage that the occurrence unintentionally and unexpectedly resulted in bodily injury or property damage during the term of the policy. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden. f. With respect to any amount claimed on a policy that defines an occurrence as one or more accident or disasters and/or series of accidents or disasters arising out of or resulting from one event, it is Amtraks burden to show as a predicate to insurance coverage that the bodily injury or property damage was the result of an accident or disaster or series of accidents or disasters, and not from ordinary and routine business operations. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 34 of 52 PageID #: 34 -35-
g. With respect to any amount claimed, it is Amtraks burden to show as a predicate to insurance coverage that the bodily injury or property damage resulted from a fortuity. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden. h. With respect to any amount claimed, it is Amtraks burden to show as a predicate to insurance coverage that the bodily injury or property damage was not a known loss or a loss in progress at the time of the inception of the Policy in question. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden. i. With respect to any amount claimed under certain policies, it is Amtraks burden to show as a predicate to insurance coverage that Amtrak has paid that amount as compensation for bodily injury or property damage. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden. j. With respect to any amount claimed under certain policies, it is Amtraks burden to show as a predicate to insurance coverage that Amtrak has paid that amount as damages for bodily injury or property damage. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden. k. With respect to any amount claimed with respect to any Environmental Claim, it is Amtraks burden to show as a predicate to insurance coverage that Amtrak has paid that amount for property damage as defined by the insurance policies. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden. l. The Policies require, as predicate to insurance coverage, that Amtrak cooperate with Plaintiffs in their investigation, evaluation and handling of claims, and not voluntarily undertake obligations or enter into settlements without the Plaintiffs consent. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak has not complied with this condition precedent. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 35 of 52 PageID #: 35 -36-
m. The Policies contain a requirement, as a condition precedent to insurance coverage, that notice of claims or circumstances likely to give rise to claims that may be covered under the Policies must be provided as soon as practical (or practicable) or, in certain circumstances, immediately. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak has not complied with this condition precedent. n. With respect to any amount claimed for damage to or destruction of physical property, it is Amtraks burden under certain Policies to show as a predicate to insurance coverage that the damage or destruction does not relate to Amtraks own property or property in its care, custody or control or as to which Amtrak is in any way exercising physical control. Under certain other Policies, this limitation on coverage appears as an exclusion. Under all Policies, any amount claimed as damage to or destruction of Amtraks own property or property in its care, custody or control, or property as to which Amtrak is in any way exercising physical control, is not covered under the Policies. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that this limitation on coverage applies to some or all of the amounts alleged to be owing with respect to the Environmental Claims. o. Certain of the Policies contain an exclusion for coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused directly or indirectly by seepage, pollution or contamination, or for the cleanup or removal of seeping, polluting, or contaminating substances, which, in the circumstances of each of the Environmental Claims and certain of the Asbestos Claims and Health Hazard Claims asserted by Amtrak, precludes any obligation of the Plaintiffs to provide insurance coverage under such Policies for such claims. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 36 of 52 PageID #: 36 -37-
p. Certain of the Policies contain an exclusion for bodily injury caused directly or indirectly by asbestos, which precludes insurance coverage under such Policies for asbestos bodily injury claims. q. The Policies are excess policies which do not provide coverage for any losses within Amtraks per occurrence self-insured retentions or within the limits of any underlying insurance policies. A judicial determination on the number of occurrences issues will affect whether and if so to what extent any Policies provide coverage for any of Amtraks Claims. With respect to the Asbestos Claims and the Health Hazard Claims, the parties at all times understood and Amtrak has acknowledged and agreed that the claim of each employee constitutes a separate occurrence. r. The Policies issued by Plaintiffs are excess policies, which provide coverage, if any, only in excess of any other insurance that may pertain to a particular loss, unless such other insurance is specifically identified as excess to the policies in question. s. Any amounts constituting punitive or exemplary damages, or fines or penalties are not covered under the Policies. t. With respect to any amount claimed, the Policies do not provide insurance coverage for liabilities assumed by Amtrak under certain indemnification and hold harmless agreements between Amtrak and certain railroad companies. u. With respect to any amount claimed, the Policies do not provide coverage for amounts incurred by Amtrak due to a failure on its part to mitigate or avoid a loss, or arising out of payment of unreasonable or unnecessary amounts to claimants or other entities. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 37 of 52 PageID #: 37 -38-
v. With respect to any amount claimed, to the extent it is determined by the Court that any Claim may give rise to an obligation under one or more Policies, the amount of any such obligation under any policy shall be determined by an appropriate allocation as among Amtrak and its insurers pursuant to an appropriate allocation methodology applied by the Court. w. With respect to any amount claimed, the Policies do not afford coverage unless the claimed loss falls with the scope of coverage in accordance with all the terms, conditions, limitations, exclusions, attachment points and limits of liability of the Policies. The Policies have other terms, conditions, exclusions, limitations and endorsements which are not specifically identified herein, but as to which the Plaintiffs seek a declaration, the objective of this Complaint being as complete and comprehensive a resolution as possible of the actual and justiciable controversy that exists between Amtrak and the Plaintiffs and other insurers of Amtrak with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and the Health Hazard Claims. 130. An actual and presently justiciable controversy exists between and among the Plaintiffs, Defendant Amtrak, and the Insurer Defendants, with respect to the proper construction of the liability policies issued to Amtrak and Plaintiffs and Defendants rights and obligations under the various policies with respect to the Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, and Health Hazard Claims. The controversy is of sufficient immediacy and magnitude to justify the issuance of a declaratory judgment. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 38 of 52 PageID #: 38 -39-
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully pray for relief as follows, that the Court: 1. Declare that Plaintiffs have no obligation to indemnify or provide other coverage to Amtrak or any other assured under the Policies identified on Attachment C with respect to the Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, or Health Hazard Claims; 2. Declare that neither Amtrak nor any other assured under the policies identified on Attachment C has exhausted the applicable self-insured retentions with respect to any of the Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, or Health Hazard Claims; 3. Declare that coverage under the policies identified on Attachment C, to the extent any is determined to exist for any of the Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, or Health Hazard Claims, is in accordance with the terms, conditions, and limitations of the policies, including that each claimants bodily injury claim constitutes a separate occurrence under the policies; 4. Declare that to the extent any Plaintiff is determined to have an obligation to indemnify amounts assertedly incurred with respect to the Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, or Health Hazard Claims, such obligation must be allocated on a pro rata basis across all triggered periods to the extent any such claim triggers more than one policy period, and that any obligation of any such Plaintiff is limited by that pro rata allocation; 5. Enter a declaration as to any other rights and obligations of the parties as may be required to effect a comprehensive resolution of the controversy between and among the parties with respect to the Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, and Health Hazard Claims; and Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 39 of 52 PageID #: 39 -40-
6. Grant such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: August 8, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ronald Abramson Ronald Abramson LEWIS BAACH PLLC The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174 Tel: 212-826-7001 Fax: 212-826-7146
Counsel for Plaintiffs Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 40 of 52 PageID #: 40 1
SYNDICATE 918 SYNDICATE 921 SYNDICATE 935 SYNDICATE 943 SYNDICATE 947 SYNDICATE 986 SYNDICATE 987 SYNDICATE 989 SYNDICATE 990 London Market Companies: ACCIDENT & CASUALTY CO. ACCIDENT & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF WINTERTHUR ACCIDENT & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF WINTERTHUR (NO. 2A/C) ACCIDENT & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF WINTERTHUR (NO. 3 A/C) AEGON NV FORMERLY AGO SCHADEVEZEKERING MAATSCHAPPIJ NV AG DE 1830 COMPAGNIE BELGE D ASSURANCES GENERALES INCENDIE ACCIDENTS ET RISQUES DIVERS SA AMERICAN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY AMSTERDAM LONDON VERZEKERING MAATSCHAPPIJ NV ANCON INSURANCE COMPANY (UK) LIMITED ARGONAUT NORTHWEST INSURANCE COMPANY ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI SPA (UK BRANCH) BISHOPSGATE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRITAMCO POOL CNA REINSURANCE COMPANY CNA REINSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED CORNHILL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED CREDIT DE NAMUR DELTA-LLOYD NON-LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DELTA-LLOYD SCHADEVERZEKERING NV DILIGENTIA EUROPEESCHE VERZEKERING MAATSCHAPPIJ NV EXCESS INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HELVETIA-ACCIDENT SWISS INSURANCE COMPANY (as part of GIBBON "E" GROUP) GRESHAM FIRE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE SOCIETY LIMITED GRESHAM INSURANCE SOCIETY LIMITED HARPER INSURANCE LTD F/K/A/ TUREGUM INS CO INSTITUTO DE REASSEGUROS DO BRASIL (IRG) LONDON BRANCH INTERLLOYD VERZEKERING MAASTSCHAPPIJ NV KONING & BOEKE VAN 1819 LA BELGIQUE L'ASSICURAZIONI D'ITALIA LE ASSICURAZIONI D'ITALIA SPA LES ASSURANCES GENERALES DE FRANCE LES PROPRIETAIRES REUNIS S.A. D. ASSURANCES I.A.R.D. L'ETOILE LONDON & EDINBUGH GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LONDON AND EDINBURGH GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 42 of 52 PageID #: 42 3
MAAS LLOYD NV SCHADEVERZEKERINGSMAATSCHAPPIJ MERCATOR ALGEMENE VERZEKERINGS MAATSCHAPPIJ NV N.V. ROTTERDAMSE ASSURANTIEKAS, N.V. VERZ MIJ DE NOODERN NAMUR ASSURANCES DU CREDIT NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA LIMITED NISSAN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY NOORHOLLAND BRANDW NORWICH UNION FIRE INSUARNCE SOCITY LIMITED PROVIDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY RHEINLAND VERSICHERUNGS AG ROYAL BELGE SA ROYAL NEDERLAND SCHADEVERZEKERING NV ROYALE BELGE INCENDIE REASSURANCE S.A. SIMCOE & ERIE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ST KATHERINE INSURANCE COMPANY PLC TAISHO MARINE & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED TERRA NOVA INSURANCE COMPANY THE SUMITOMO MARINE AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED UNIONAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED WINTERTHUR SWISS INSURANCE COMPANY WURTTEMBERGISCH FEUERVERSICHERRUNG AG YASUDA FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY(UK) LIMITED
Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 43 of 52 PageID #: 43 1
ATTACHMENT B
Insurer Defendants
Allianz Insurance Company, now known as Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Allstate Insurance Company American Home Assurance Company American Insurance Company American Reinsurance Company, now known as Munich Re. Group Incorporated Argonaut Insurance Company Assubel Accidents Et Dommages SA ASTRA S.A. Insurance and Reinsurance Company as Successor to ADAS State Insurance Institute Atlantica Insurance Company Banco De Seguros Del Estado Bandeirante Bellefonte Insurance Company (US) Bison Insurance Company Limited Brittany Insurance Company Limited California Union Insurance Company CIGNA Compagnie Belge DAssurances Credit S.A. Companhia de Seguros Imperio Compania de Seguros La Republica S.A. Continental Insurance Company as successor in interest to Harbor Insurance Company and Pacific Insurance Company Eurinco Allgemeine Versicherungs Aktiengesellschaft Evanston Insurance Company Fireman's Fund Insurance Company First State Insurance Company GESB-Grupo Empresas Seguradoras Granite State Insurance Company Hassneh Insurance Company of Israel Limited Instituto Nacionali de Reaseguros Insurance Company of North America Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania Interstate Reinsurance Corporation International Surplus Lines Insurance Company Korean Reinsurance Company Landmark Insurance Company Lexington Insurance Company National Mutual Insurance Company, now known as Celina Insurance Group National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Northbrook Insurance Company, now known as Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company Railroad Association Insurance Ltd. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 44 of 52 PageID #: 44 2
Reafianzadora y Reaseguradora de America Roberto Fevre Shand Morahan & Company, now known as Markel International Insurance Company Stronghold Insurance Company The Dominion Insurance Company The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company The Peoples Insurance Company of China Vera Cruz Insurance Company Wausau International Underwriters Yosemite Insurance Company
Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 45 of 52 PageID #: 45 1
Attachment C Policies on Which Plaintiffs Participated
INSURER
POLICY NUMBER POLICY PERIOD London Market Insurers UD0311 06/01/1972 06/01/1974 London Market Insurers UD0312 06/01/1972 06/01/1974 London Market Insurers UD0313 06/01/1972 06/01/1974 London Market Insurers UD0314 06/01/1972 06/01/1974 London Market Insurers UD0394 06/26/1972 06/01/1974 London Market Insurers UFR0382 02/22/1974 02/22/1975 London Market Insurers UFR0823 06/01/1974 06/01/1977 London Market Insurers UFR0824 06/01/1974 06/01/1977 London Market Insurers UFR0825 06/01/1974 06/01/1977 London Market Insurers UGR0245 02/22/1975 06/01/1976 London Market Insurers UGR 1355* 07/01/1975 06/01/1977 London Market Insurers UGR 1356* 07/01/1975 06/01/1977 London Market Insurers 75DD1253C 07/30/1975 06/01/1977 London Market Insurers UHR0642* 01/01/1976 06/01/1977 London Market Insurers UHR0629 06/01/1976 06/01/1977 London Market Insurers UHR 1430* 11/18/1976 06/01/1977 London Market Insurers UJ R0973/NC3950 06/01/1977 06/01/1978 London Market Insurers UJ R0974/NC3951/C5910 06/01/1977 06/01/1978 London Market Insurers NC3952 06/01/1977 06/01/1978 London Market Insurers UJ R0975/C5914 07/01/1977 06/01/1978 London Market Insurers UJ R0976/C5918 07/01/1977 06/01/1978 London Market Insurers UKR0744/NC5583 06/01/1978 06/01/1979 London Market Insurers UKR0745/NC5584/TR/063/78(A) 06/01/1978 06/01/1979 London Market Insurers UKR0746/NC5585/TR/063/78(B) 06/01/1978 06/01/1979 London Market Insurers UKR0747/TR/063/078(C) 06/01/1978 06/01/1979 London Market Insurers ULR0727/NC7553 06/01/1979 - 06/01/1980 London Market Insurers ULR0728/NC7554/F79/072 06/01/1979 - 06/01/1980 London Market Insurers ULR0729 06/01/1979 - 06/01/1980 London Market Insurers UMR0315/NTA097 06/01/1980 06/01/1981 London Market Insurers UMR0316/NTA098/R800A00101/C6911 06/01/1980 06/01/1981 London Market Insurers UMR0317/NTA099 06/01/1980 06/01/1981 London Market Insurers UNR0252/NTA563 06/01/1981 06/01/1982 London Market Insurers UNR0253/NTA564/F81/0155 06/01/1981 06/01/1982 London Market Insurers UNR0254/NTA565 06/01/1981 06/01/1982 London Market Insurers UPR0238/NTA944 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 London Market Insurers UPR0239 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 London Market Insurers UPR0240/NTA945 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 London Market Insurers UPR0241 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 London Market Insurers NTB540 10/01/1983 10/01/1984 London Market Insurers NTB541 10/01/1983 10/01/1984 London Market Insurers NTB542 10/01/1983 10/01/1984 London Market Insurers NTB543 10/01/1983 10/01/1984 London Market Insurers NTC060 10/01/1984 10/01/1985 Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 46 of 52 PageID #: 46 2
INSURER
POLICY NUMBER POLICY PERIOD London Market Insurers NTC061 10/01/1984 10/01/1985 London Market Insurers NTC062 10/01/1984 10/01/1985 London Market Insurers NTC063 10/01/1984 10/01/1985 London Market Insurers NTC064 10/01/1984 10/01/1985 London Market Insurers NTC732 10/01/1985 10/01/1986 London Market Insurers NTC733 10/01/1985 10/01/1986 London Market Insurers NTC734 10/01/1985 10/01/1986 London Market Insurers NTC735 10/01/1985 10/01/1986
*Denotes policies Amtrak has alleged to exist and which Amtrak has asserted or may assert provide coverage for the claims at issue. Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 47 of 52 PageID #: 47 1
ATTACHMENT D Insurer Defendants Policies INSURER
POLICY NUMBER
POLICY PERIOD
Allianz Insurance Company, now known as Allianz Global Risks US Insurance
AXL-5206532
10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 All State Insurance Company unknown unknown American Home Assurance Company CE2749457 06/01/1972 06/01/1973 American Home Assurance Company CE2749669 06/01/1973 06/01/1974 American Home Assurance Company 343-7140 02/22/1974 02/22/1975 American Home Assurance Company C-5322/SP 1197* 06/01/1974 06/01/1975 American Home Assurance Company unknown 06/01/1975 - 6/01/1976 American Home Assurance Company 9603670 12/18/1984 - 10/01/1985 American Insurance Company unknown 10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 American Reinsurance Company, now known as Munich Re. Group Incorporated CO718060
06/01/1972 06/01/1974 American Reinsurance Company, now known as Munich Re. Group Incorporated
CO718056
06/01/1972 06/01/1974 Argonaut Insurance Company DX37 06/01/1972 06/01/1976 Argonaut Insurance Company C5318/SP1196* 06/01/1974 06/01/1976 ASTRA S.A. Insurance and Reinsurance Company as Successor to ADAS State Insurance Institute
AV3769
06/01/1976 06/01/1977 California Union Insurance Company ZCV269 06/01/1972 06/01/1974 California Union Insurance Company ZCV270 06/01/1972 06/01/1974 California Union Insurance Company ZCV2742 06/01/1974 06/01/1977 California Union Insurance Company ZCV2743 06/01/1974 06/01/1977 California Union Insurance Company ZCV3657 06/01/1977 06/01/1978 California Union Insurance Company ZCV3658 06/01/1977 06/01/1978 California Union Insurance Company ZCV4624 06/01/1978 06/01/1979 California Union Insurance Company ZCV4625 06/01/1978 06/01/1979 California Union Insurance Company ZCV4626 06/01/1978 06/01/1979 California Union Insurance Company ZCV4926 06/01/1979 06/01/1980 California Union Insurance Company ZCV4927 06/01/1979 06/01/1980 California Union Insurance Company ZCV5593 06/01/1980 - 06/01/1981 California Union Insurance Company ZCV5594 06/01/1980 - 06/01/1981 California Union Insurance Company ZCV5595 06/01/1980 - 06/01/1981 California Union Insurance Company ZCV5962 06/01/1981 - 06/01/1982 California Union Insurance Company ZCV5963 06/01/1981 - 06/01/1982 California Union Insurance Company ZCV6165 06/01/1982 - 10/01/1983 California Union Insurance Company ZCV6170 06/01/1982 - 10/01/1983 California Union Insurance Company ZCV6171 06/01/1982 - 10/01/1983 California Union Insurance Company unknown 10/01/1983 - 10/01/1984 California Union Insurance Company ZCX007352 10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 California Union Insurance Company ZCX007353 10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 California Union Insurance Company ZCX007354 10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 California Union Insurance Company ZCX007355 10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 California Union Insurance Company ZCX008490 10/01/1985 - 10/01/1986 Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 48 of 52 PageID #: 48 2
INSURER
POLICY NUMBER
POLICY PERIOD
California Union Insurance Company ZCX008499 10/01/1985 - 10/01/1986 CIGNA unknown unknown Compania de Seguros La Republica S.A. XL010072 06/01/1977 06/01/1978 Compania de Seguros La Republica S.A. XL010073 06/01/1977 06/01/1978 Continental Insurance Company as successor in interest to Harbor Insurance Company
132709
06/01/1977 06/01/1978 Continental Insurance Company as successor in interest to Harbor Insurance Company 135096 06/01/1978 06/01/1979 Continental Insurance Company as successor in interest to Harbor Insurance Company 137024 06/01/1979 06/01/1980 Continental Insurance Company as successor in interest to Harbor Insurance Company HI-148628 06/01/1980 06/01/1981 Continental Insurance Company as successor in interest to Harbor Insurance Company HI-208200 10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 Continental Insurance Company as successor in interest to Pacific Insurance Company PI000125 06/01/1981 06/01/1982 Evanston Insurance Company unknown 10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 Fireman's Fund Insurance Company unknown 10/01/1983 - 10/01/1984 Fireman's Fund Insurance Company XEXB56597 10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 First State Insurance Company 934018 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 First State Insurance Company 980101 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 First State Insurance Company 980102 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 First State Insurance Company 980103 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 First State Insurance Company unknown 10/01/1983 - 10/01/1984 Glacier General Assurance Company SCP4390 06/01/1974 06/01/1975 Granite State Insurance Company 6678 0364 06/01/1978 06/01/1979 Granite State Insurance Company 6678 0365 06/01/1978 06/01/1979 Granite State Insurance Company 6679 1324 06/01/1979 06/01/1980 Granite State Insurance Company 6679 1325 06/01/1979 06/01/1980 Granite State Insurance Company 6680 - 2303 06/01/1980 06/01/1981 Granite State Insurance Company 6680 2304 06/01/1980 06/01/1981 Granite State Insurance Company 6681 - 2663 06/01/1981 06/01/1982 Granite State Insurance Company 6681 2664 06/01/1981 06/01/1982 Granite State Insurance Company 6682 - 3461 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 Insurance Company of North America XPL17271 06/01/1972 06/01/1973 Insurance Company of North America XCP156087 10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania
4172-5318
06/01/1972 06/01/1974 Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania
4174-6043
06/01/1974 06/01/1977 Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania
4174-6044
06/01/1974 06/01/1977 Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania
4175-6490
06/01/1975 06/01/1976 Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania
4175-6349
02/22/1975 06/01/1977 Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania
4177-7889
06/01/1977 06/01/1978 Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 49 of 52 PageID #: 49 3
INSURER
POLICY NUMBER
POLICY PERIOD
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania
4177-7890
06/01/1977 06/01/1978 Integrity Insurance XL204031 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 Interstate Reinsurance Corporation 911 1904 06/01//1972 06/01/1974 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
GP1546
06/01/1972 06/01/1974 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
XSI1285
06/01/1972 06/01/1974 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
XSI1286
06/01/1972 06/01/1974 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
XSI1995
02/22/1974 02/22/1975 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
GP1799
06/01/1974 06/01/1977 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
XSI2035
06/01/1974 06/01/1977 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
XSI2036
06/01/1974 06/01/1977 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR1136
05/31/19787 05/31/1978 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR1134
06/01/1977 06/01/1978 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR1135
06/01/1977 06/01/1978 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR1137
06/01/1977 06/01/1978 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR1138
06/01/1977 06/01/1978 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2046
06/01/1978 06/01/1979 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2047
06/01/1978 06/01/1979 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2048
06/01/1978 06/01/1979 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company RR2049
06/01/1978 06/01/1979 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company RR2141
06/01/1979 06/01/1980 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company RR2142
06/01/1979 06/01/1980 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2143
06/01/1979 06/01/1980 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2236
06/01/1980 06/01/1981 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2237
06/01/1980 06/01/1981 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2238
06/01/1980 06/01/1981 Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 50 of 52 PageID #: 50 4
INSURER
POLICY NUMBER
POLICY PERIOD
International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2343
06/01/1981 06/01/1982 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2344
06/01/1981 06/01/1982 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2345
06/01/1981 06/01/1982 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2415
06/01/1982 10/01/1983 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2416
06/01/1982 10/01/1983 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2417
06/01/1982 10/01/1983 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
unknown
10/1/1983 - 10/01/1984 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2572
10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2573
10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2574
10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2575
10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
RR2576
10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 Landmark Insurance Company FE-4002094 10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 Lexington Insurance Company 5525963 10/01/1983 - 10/01/1984 Lexington Insurance Company 5525964 10/01/1983 - 10/01/1984 Lexington Insurance Company 5527109 10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 Midland Insurance Company XL148193 06/01/1978 06/01/1979 Mutual Fire, Marine and Inland Insurance Company
R5310
06/01/1972 06/01/1973 Mutual Fire, Marine and Inland Insurance Company
R5311
06/01/1972 06/01/1973 Mutual Fire, Marine and Inland Insurance Company R5312
06/01/1972 06/01/1973 Mutual Fire, Marine and Inland Insurance Company
R5313
06/01/1972 06/01/1973 National Mutual Insurance Company, now known as Celina Insurance Group
11449
06/01/1972 06/01/1974 National Mutual Insurance Company, now known as Celina Insurance Group
11450
06/01/1972 06/01/1974 National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
9603670
12/18/1984 10/01/1985 Northbrook Insurance Company, now known as Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company
63000352
06/01/1974 06/01/1977 Northbrook Insurance Company, now known as Allstate Northbrook Indemnity
63008782
Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 51 of 52 PageID #: 51 5
INSURER
POLICY NUMBER
POLICY PERIOD
Company 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 Northeastern Fire Insurance Company C5318/SP1196 06/01/1976 03/10/1977 Railroad Association Insurance Ltd. 85002 05/051/1986 - 12/01/1986 Reliance Insurance Company of Illinois KR5587951 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 Reliance Insurance Company of Illinois KR5587952 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 Shand Morahan & Co., now known as Markel International Insurance Company EX115565
10/01/1984 - 10/01/1985 Signal Insurance Company SP1152 06/01/1973 06/01/1974 Signal Insurance Company SP1153 06/01/1973 06/01/1974 Signal Insurance Company SP1154 06/01/1973 06/01/1974 Signal Insurance Company SP1156 06/01/1973 06/01/1974 The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company
unknown
unknown Transportation Mutual Insurance Company S8138 06/01/1974 06/01/1975 Wausau International Underwriters 5732-00-100237 06/01/1981 10/01/1983 Wausau International Underwriters 5733-00-100324 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 Wausau International Underwriters 5733-00-100325 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 Wausau International Underwriters 5733-00-100326 06/01/1982 10/01/1983 Wausau International Underwriters 5732-00-100237 10/01/1983 10/01/1984 Wausau International Underwriters 5733-00-100324 10/01/1983 10/01/1984 Wausau International Underwriters unknown 10/01/1983 10/01/1984 Wausau International Underwriters 5733-00-100326 10/01/1983 10/01/1984 Yosemite Insurance Company YXL105195 02/22/1974 02/22/1975
Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-CLP Document 1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 52 of 52 PageID #: 52
State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company v. Kelly J. Sayles, Administratrix of The Estate of Bonnie E. Sayles and Andrew Smith, 289 F.3d 181, 2d Cir. (2002)
Hennes Erecting Company, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant, 813 F.2d 1074, 10th Cir. (1987)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by William Sheppard, Insurance Commissioner v. National Association of Flood Insurers, An Unincorporated Association, 520 F.2d 11, 3rd Cir. (1975)
Town of Springfield, Vermont v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, and The Employers Mutual and Casualty Company, 794 F.2d 802, 2d Cir. (1986)
Acands, Inc. v. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and The Travelers Indemnity Company and The Travelers Insurance Company v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc, 764 F.2d 968, 3rd Cir. (1985)