Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Chubb unit wins ruling over destroyed boat

Reprints
Chubb

A Florida federal district court refused to dismiss litigation filed by a Chubb Ltd. unit against a ship part manufacturer in connection with a vessel’s destruction.

In 2014, a fire severely damaged the “E-Mc2,” which was owned by Eric Slifka and insured by Chubb Ltd. unit Ace American Insurance Co., according to court papers in Ace American Insurance Co. v. Florida Bow Thrusters Inc.

The vessel included a bow thruster, which is an auxiliary propulsion device in the ship’s bow that aids in maneuvering, that had been installed by Merritt Island, Florida-based Florida Bow Thrusters, according to Monday’s ruling by the U.S. District Court in Orlando. An ACE expert determined the bow thruster was likely the source of the fire.

After related litigation in the matter that was filed in Massachusetts was settled, ACE, which had paid Mr. Slifka for the property damage, filed suit in Florida against Florida Bow Thrusters on negligence, indemnification and contribution claims.

Florida Bow Thrusters filed a motion seeking the case’s dismissal, which the court denied in Monday’s ruling.

Florida Bow Thrusters maintains that the counts in the litigation are “replete with legal conclusions” and “devoid of the requisite factual allegations,” but “does not provide any examples of these legal conclusions or of areas where the required factual allegations are lacking” said the ruling, in analyzing the firm’s arguments in favor of dismissal.

“While Ace could have been more meticulous in drafting the Amended Complaint, Florida Bow Thrusters cannot seriously argue that it…was unable to figure out which allegations of fact are intended to support which claims for relief,” it said, in denying the company’s motion to dismiss the case.

Attorneys in the case had no comment.

The collapse of layers of rock into a cave that formerly housed a limestone mine, which now operates as an underground storage facility, cannot be considered insured building decay, said a federal appeals court Friday, in affirming a lower court ruling in favor of a Chubb Ltd. unit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Next

  • Chubb unit loses D&O litigation

    Former directors and officers of a bankrupt real estate investment trust firm prevailed Monday in directors and officers’ litigation against a Chubb Ltd. unit over the issue of application of the insured vs. insured exclusion.