This document is a complaint filed by Central Asia Institute against Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company regarding insurance coverage. It summarizes that CAl had an insurance policy with Philadelphia to cover certain legal claims. CAl and its executive director Greg Mortenson were sued in two matters (the "Pfau Litigation" and "AG Matter") and incurred legal defense costs. However, Philadelphia refused to fully cover and advance these defense costs, in breach of the insurance contract. CAl is suing Philadelphia for declaratory relief and damages for its failure to honor coverage obligations.
1. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 1 of 23
Carey E. Matovich
Jesse Myers
MATOVICH, KELLER & MURPHY, P.C.
2812 First Avenue North, Suite 225
P.O. Box 1098
Billings, MT 59103-1098
Telephone: (406) 252-5500
Facsimile: (406) 252-4613
Email: cmatovich@mkfinn.com
Email: ;myers@mkfinn.com
John M. Kauffman
Lilia Tyrrell
KASTING, KAUFFMAN & MERSEN, P.C.
716 S. 20th Avenue, Suite 101
Bozeman, MT 59718
Telephone: (406) 586-4383
Facsimile: (406) 587-7871
Email: jkauffman@kkmlaw.net
Email: Ityrrell@kkmlaw.net
A ttorneys for Central Asia Institute
IN TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
)
CENTRAL ASIA INSTITUTE, )
) Cause No. CV-I;J.=75-t3u- DLL
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) COMPLAINT AND DEMAND
) FOR JURY TRIAL
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY )
INSURANCE COMPANY, )
- - - - - - - - - - - ---~)
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial- 1
2. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 2 of 23
Defendant. )
Plaintiff Central Asia Institute ("CAl"), by and through its attorneys, files
this Complaint against Defendant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company
("Philadelphia"), and alleges as follows.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. CAl files suit for declaratory relief and for recovery of compensatory
and punitive damages from Philadelphia arising out of Philadelphia's failure to
honor its obligations under its insurance contract with CAl and for its unfair,
erroneous, and bad faith refusal to pay Defense Costs incurred by CAl for covered
claims.
PARTIES
2. CAl is a Delaware 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, with its principle
place of business in Montana. CAl's charitable mission is to empower
communities of Central Asia through literacy and education, especially for girls, to
promote peace through education and convey the importance of these activities
globally.
3. Philadelphia is a foreign insurance company authorized to do business
in Montana. Philadelphia is a Pennsylvania corporation, with its principle place of
business in Pennsylvania.
Complaint and Demand tor Jury Trial- 2
3. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 3 of 23
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. CAl and Philadelphia are citizens of different states and the amount in
controversy in this matter exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. This
Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
5. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) and
Local Rule 3.2(b).
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
6. CAl purchased Philadelphia Commercial Lines Policy No.
PHSD577929 with a Policy Period of December 1,2010, through December 1,
2011 (the "Policy"). A true and correct copy ofthe Policy is attached as Exhibit 1.
7. CAl is the Named Insured Organization under the Policy. The Policy
provides liability insurance for the Organization (CAl), in addition for Individual
Insureds. The Individual Insureds under the Policy include, inter alia, CAl's past,
present, and future officers and directors, including but not limited to its executive
director.
8. During the Policy Period and at all relevant times herein, Greg
Mortenson ("Mortenson") served as CAl's executive director, and is an Individual
Insured under the Policy. CAl has a duty to indemnify Mortenson, as the
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial - 3
4. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 4 of 23
executive director of CAl under Delaware law and under an indemnification
resolution passed by its Board of Directors.
9. Under the terms of the Policy, CAl and Mortenson had (and have)
responsibility to defend any Claim made against them. They are obligated to elect
counsel oftheir choice, subject to approval of Philadelphia. Philadelphia's
approval may not be unreasonably withheld.
10. Under the terms of the Policy, Philadelphia has a duty to advance
Defense Cost for investigation, adjustment, defense and appeal of claims, in
addition to the Limit of Liability as follows:
If the Insured has assumed the defense of a Claim pursuant to
A. above, the Underwriter shall advance Defense Cost prior
to the final disposition of a Claim ...
11. The Policy defines the term "Defense Cost" as "any reasonable and
necessary legal fees and expenses incurred in the defense of a Claim, whether by
the insured with the Underwriter's consent or directly by Underwriter, in the
investigation, adjustment, defense and appeal of a Claim ... " Hereinafter the term
is referred to as "Defense Cost" or "Defense Costs."
12. Payment of Defense Costs by Philadelphia under the Policy is an
obligation which is in addition to, and not part of, the Limit of Liability unless the
applicable Limit of Liability has been exhausted by payment of damage claims.
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial. 4
5. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 5 of 23
13. CAr incurred Defense Costs for itself and for Mortenson in
connection with the lawsuit initiated against them on or about May 5, 20 II, in the
United States District Court of Montana known as Case No. CV-II-72-M-DWM
("Pfau Litigation").
14. The plaintiffs in the Pfau Litigation claimed to have purchased books
authored by Mortenson entitled Three Cups ofTea and Stones Into Schools. The
complaints filed against Mortenson and CAl in the Pfau Litigation contained a
variety of legal and equitable claims (fraud, deceit, RICO violations breach of
contract, unjust enrichment and constructive trust) all of which were predicated on
the same core set of factual allegations.
IS. The plaintiffs in the Pfau Litigation amended their complaint four
times. CAl timely provided Philadelphia with copies of the First, Second, Third,
and Fourth Amended Complaints filed in the Pfau Litigation. A copy of the Fourth
Amended Complaint is attached as Exhibit 2.
16. The Pfau Litigation at all times involved an attempt to establish a
nationwide class of book purchasers and included motions and briefs on class
certification, discovery, and whether the matter should be dismissed for failing to
state claims upon which relief could be granted.
17. On April 30, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of
Montana dismissed the Fourth Amended Complaint filed in the Pfau Litigation
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial - 5
6. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 6 of 23
with prejudice, holding, in part, that the plaintiffs had failed to state claims upon
which relief could be granted. Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals and that appeal is pending
18. CAl wrote to Philadelphia on May 27, 2011, and again on May 31,
2011, to notify Philadelphia of the Piau Litigation and to request full coverage
under the Policy, including approval of retained counsel (the "May 2011 Notices").
Philadelphia acknowledged receipt ofthe May 2011 Notices on June 2, 2011.
19. Separately from the May 2011 Notices, Mortenson notified
Philadelphia of the Piau Litigation on or about June 9, 2011, and requested full
coverage under the Policy including approval of counsel. Philadelphia
acknowledged receipt of Mortenson's notice of loss on June 17,2011.
20. Given the complex and nation-wide issues presented in the Piau
Litigation and the fact that it was filed in the United States District Court in the
State of Montana, it was reasonable and necessary for CAl and Mortenson to
engage both Montana counsel and national counsel with experience in RICO, class
action, and the other claims in this litigation, which they had done, and of which
they timely notified Philadelphia.
21. Following receipt ofthe complaint in the Piau Litigation, CAl
incurred reasonable and necessary Defense Costs investigating, preparing to
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial- 6
7. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 7 of 23
defend, and defending itself and Mortenson against the allegations therein, and
continues to do so with respect to the appeal.
22. CAl also incurred Defense Costs for itself and for Mortenson in
connection with investigations initiated against them beginning in May of2011, by
the Office of the Attorney General ofMontana
23. On or about September 16,2011, CAl (i) notified Philadelphia of its
defense in the AG Matter, (ii) provided Philadelphia with applicable
correspondence from the Office of the Montana Attorney General; and (iii)
requested full coverage under the Policy including but not limited to approval of
retained counsel. Philadelphia received the September 16, 2011, notice from CAL
24. On or about May 27 and 31, June 21, and August 1, 2011, Mortenson
(i) notified Philadelphia of his defense in the AG Matter; (ii) provided Philadelphia
with applicable correspondence from the Office ofthe Montana Attorney General;
and (iii) requested full coverage under the Policy including approval of retained
counsel. Philadelphia received the May 27 and 31, June 21, and August 1, 201 I,
notices from Mortenson.
25. CAl and Mortenson had each retained legal counsel to assist them
with the AG Matter. Given the complex issues presented in the AG Matter, it was
reasonable for CAl and Mortenson to engage both Montana counsel and counsel
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial - 7
8. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 8 of 23
with experience working with administrative attorneys general investigations
involving non-profit corporations and their directors.
26. On AprilS, 2012, CAl, Mortenson and the Office of the Montana
Attorney General entered into a Settlement Agreement and Assurance of Voluntary
Compliance regarding the AG Matter. CAl incurred Defense Costs for both itself
and Mortenson, as that term is defined in the Policy, to achieve this result.
27. The Piau Litigation and the AG Matter (collectively, the "Claims")
are covered matters within the Policy. Philadelphia must pay the Defense Costs
incurred by CAl for itself and Mortenson in connection with the Claims.
28. CAl has complied with ail applicable conditions precedent to entitle it
to the benefits afforded by the Policy with respect to payment of Defense Costs for
the Claims.
29. CAl regularly provided Philadelphia with copies of legal bills it
received (and which it had paid) from its defense counsel and requested that
Philadelphia recognize its duty to pay and advance to CAl the Defense Cost it was
incurring. CAl did not receive a reservation of rights letter from Philadelphia in
which Philadelphia set forth any facts or law that might relieve Philadelphia of its
obligation to provide full coverage under the Policy, until after significant Defense
Costs for the Claims had been incurred.
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial - 8
9. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 9 of 23
30. On or about December 6, 2011, Philadelphia first acknowledged that
the Piau Litigation and AG Matter constituted Claims during the Policy Period.
31. In the December 6, 20 II letter, Philadelphia claimed it issued CAl a
"reservation of rights on June 17,2011." CAl never received such a "reservation
of rights" on or about June 17,2011.
32. Mortenson received a letter from Philadelphia on or about June 17,
2011, in which Philadelphia only discussed why it might reserve its rights.
33. Before December 6, 2011, Philadelphia never informed CAl of Policy
defenses it intended to raise or provided CAl a reasonable explanation based upon
the applicable facts and law of why CAl may not receive advances or
reimbursements for all Defense Costs.
34. Before December 6, 2011, Philadelphia never stated or suggested that
CAlor Mortenson should not retain counselor should not proceed with the defense
of all ofthe Claims, as required by the Policy. Philadelphia did not state or suggest
that any portion of the Defense Cost might be apportioned in a manner designated
by Philadelphia.
35. On or about December 6,20 II, Philadelphia wrote to CAl and
repudiated its duty to advance Defense Cost in full. For the first time, Philadelphia
claimed it was only obligated to reimburse CAl for 35% of the Defense Cost
incurred by CAl in defending the Piau Litigation; 25% of the Defense Cost
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial - 9
10. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 10 of 23
incurred by Mortenson in defending the Piau Litigation; 20% of the Defense Cost
incurred by Mortenson in defending the AG Matter; and 100% of the Defense Cost
incurred by CAl in defending the AG Matter. By presenting the foregoing
allocation percentages, Philadelphia misrepresented its obligations under the
Policy.
36. Philadelphia contended that it could allocate in the manner discussed
in its December 6,2011, letter based upon the following provision in Part 6,
Section XIX ofthe Policy (the "Allocation Provision"):
If both Loss covered by this Policy and Loss not covered by this Policy are
incurred either because a Claim includes both covered and uncovered
matters, or because a Claim is made against both the Individual Insured
and/or the Organization, and others, the Insured and the Underwriter shall
use their best efforts to agree upon a fair and proper allocation of such
amount between covered Loss and uncovered loss. Any such allocation
shall be based upon the relative legal exposures of the parties to covered and
uncovered matters.
37. Philadelphia may not use the "Allocation Clause" to limit the scope of
its obligation to advance or reimburse 100% of the Defense Costs incurred by CAl
in connection with the Claims because:
a. The Allocation Clause, as interpreted by Philadelphia, is
contrary to Montana law. Moreover, the claims in both the Piau Litigation
as well as the claims in the AG matter were so inextricably intertwined so as
to make them inseparable when it came to incurring the attorneys' fees and
costs defending the same. As a result, it is unreasonable to attempt to
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial - 10
11. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 11 of 23
allocate Defense Costs amongst the claims and Philadelphia is responsible
for 100% of the Defense Costs.
b. Philadelphia has acquiesced to the choices of counsel made by
CAl and Mortenson and to the amounts incurred by CAl in defending CAl
and Mortenson on the Claims. Philadelphia has not properly reserved its
rights and is estopped from (i) challenging the reasonableness and necessity
of hiring the counsel chosen by CAl and Mortenson; (ii) challenging the
amounts incurred by CAl and Mortenson in defending against the Claims
and; (iii) reimbursing CAl, in full, for the entire Defense Costs it has
incurred for itself and Mortenson in connection with the Claims.
38. In addition to imposing an arbitrary allocation percentage to reduce its
obligation to CAl, Philadelphia also attempted in its December 6, 20 11, letter to
lower the rate it would compensate the attorneys hired by CAl and Mortenson,
though Philadelphia had knowledge these attorneys had been engaged at contracted
rates since May, 20 11, and they had already undertaken significant efforts in
defending the Claims.
39. By email datedJanuaryI8.2012.Philadelphia belatedly requested
that retained defense counsel provide litigation plans and budgets for the Claims.
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial - 11
12. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 12 of 23
40. By email dated January 19, 2012, Philadelphia belatedly attempted to
unilaterally impose reporting and billing "guidelines" on the previously retained
defense counsel.
41. Despite Philadelphia receiving notice of one or more of the Claims
beginning in May of 20 II, Philadelphia made no payment to CAl for Defense
Costs for over a year, including the "allocations" suggested in its December 6,
2011, letter. In the interim, CAl had incurred and paid hundreds of thousands of
dollars in Defenses Costs for itself and Mortenson, for which Philadelphia was
responsible.
42. CAl made numerous pleas to Philadelphia to pay Defense Costs, but
the pleas were ignored or received substantially and unreasonably delayed
responses.
43. As of August 13,2012, more than fourteen (14) months after litigation
in the Piau Litigation and the AG matter had been commenced and after the
majority of anticipated Defense Costs had been incurred, Philadelphia had only
reimbursed CAl for less than 6% of the Defense Cost CAl had incurred for itself
and Mortenson in defending the Claims.
44. On August 27,2012, Philadelphia issued a second letter with new
proposed percentages for covering Defense Costs. In the August 17, 20 II, letter,
Philadelphia proposed to reimburse CAl 33% of the defense fees and costs
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial - 12
13. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 13 of 23
incurred by Mortenson in the Piau litigation prior to the Fourth Amended
Complaint; 15% of Mortenson's defense fees and costs in the Piau litigation after
the Fourth Amended Complaint; 35% "allocation" of defense fees and costs
incurred by CAl in the Piau Litigation; 50% of Mortenson's defense fees and costs
for the AG matter; and 100% of CAl's costs for the AG matter, with CAT's fees
to be "adjusted" to "Philadelphia's agreed upon rates and less certain deductions."
By presenting the foregoing allocation percentages and arbitrary rate
modifications, Philadelphia misrepresented its obligations under the Policy.
45. Philadelphia is estopped from attempting to impose the allocations
and fee reductions reflected in its December 6,2011, and August 27, 2012, letters.
The Policy directs the insureds (CAl and Mortenson) to initially assume full
control of their defense, which they did with the full knowledge and acquiescence
of Philadelphia, with Philadelphia's full knowledge of and acquiescence in the
rates charged by the defense attorneys, and with Philadelphia's full knowledge and
acquiescence that a full defense was necessary.
46. Despite numerous communications by CAl to Philadelphia regarding
payments, Philadelphia refuses to pay all of CAl's and Mortenson's Defense Costs
arising from the investigation, adjustment, defense and appeal of the Claims.
Philadelphia has not even paid CAl the amounts Philadelphia had agreed to pay in
its December 6, 2011, and August 27, 2012, letters.
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial- 13
14. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 14 of 23
47. Philadelphia has acted in bad faith by refusing to acknowledge the
applicable scope of coverage of the Claims, refusing to engage in timely and
meaningful communications with CAl, refusing to pay and advance the reasonable
and necessary Defense Cost associated with the Claims; and attempting to
arbitrarily reduce fees incurred by CAl and Mortenson.
COUNT I
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTRE: DEFENSE COST
48. CAl incorporates by reference the enumerated paragraphs above, as if
fully set forth herein.
49. Under the Policy, Philadelphia has both a duty to defend (by paying
Defense Costs) and a duty to indemnify (pay damages). The duty to defend is
broader than the duty to indemnify. Philadelphia must pay Defense Costs if any
facts or allegations bring the Claims even potentially within the protection
purchased by CAl, even if the claims are groundless, false or fraudulent.
50. CAl has complied with the terms of the Policy in order to receive the
benefits ofthe Policy. It timely paid its premiums for the Policy. It timely
provided Philadelphia with notice of the Claims. CAl has complied with all
material terms of the Policy. CAl and Mortenson have incurred and paid hundreds
of thousands of dollars in Defense Costs, which are Philadelphia's responsibility.
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial - 14
15. ------ - - - - - - - - - - -
Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 15 of 23
51. Under the Policy, Philadelphia has an obligation to pay, advance
and/or reimburse CAl and Mortenson all reasonable and necessary Defense Costs
CAl has incurred for itself and Mortenson in connection with the Claims.
52. CAl has repeatedly demanded payment ofthe reasonable and
necessary Defense Costs incurred in defending the Claims.
53. Philadelphia has improperly refused to pay, advance or reimburse all
ofthe reasonable and necessary Defense Costs incurred by CAl on behalf of itself
and Mortenson.
54. An actual controversy exists between the parties regarding their
respective rights and remedies under the Policy. CAl contends Philadelphia has no
legal right under the Policy or under Montana law (i) to allocate percentages of
Defense Costs it will pay under the Policy; (ii) to impose below market rates it
arbitrarily determines approporiate and to pay less than the actual fees incurred by
CAl and Mortenson for Defense Costs for the Claims; (iii) to withhold payment to
CAl of the Defense Costs it has already incurred in connection with the Claims or
(iv) to refuse to advance on-going Defense Cost for the Claims.
55. A declaration of rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and
Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would alleviate the uncertainty
facing CAl with regard to Philadelphia's obligations under the Policy to pay and
advance Defense Cost arising from the Claims.
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial - 15
16. - - - - - - - - - - - - " " ,.. _-,_ ..,-,,--
Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 16 of 23
56. CAl is entitled to a declaration that under the terms of the Policy,
Philadelphia (i) may not allocate a percentage of Defense Costs it will pay under
the Policy for fees and costs incurred in connection with the Claims; (ii) may not
impose below market rates it arbitrarily determines approporiate and pay less than
the actual fees incurred by CAl and Mortenson for Defense Costs for the Claims;
(iii) must reimburse CAl all of the Defense Costs CAl incurred for itself and
Mortenson in connection with the Claims and (iv) must advance on-going Defense
Cost for the Claims in the appeal of the Piau Litigation.
COUNT II
BREACH OF CONTRACT
57. CAl incorporates by reference the enumerated paragraphs above, as if
fully set forth herein.
58. Under the applicable standards of Montana law and the Policy,
Philadelphia is obligated to pay and advance all of the reasonable Defense Costs
CAl incurred for itself and Mortenson with respect to the Claims. Philadelphia
must pay and advance the same, according to the Policy, "prior to the final
disposition of a claim."
59. An insurer's defense-payment obligation is broader than its obligation
to indemnify.
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial- 16
17. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 17 of 23
60. CAl has complied with all conditions and obligations under the Policy
regarding its rights to receive Defense Costs from Philadelphia with respect to the
Claims.
61. Philadelphia breached the Policy by denying it has the obligation to
pay, advance or reimburse the reasonable and necessary Defense Costs CAl has
incurred for itself and Mortenson and will continue to incur in defense and appeal
of the Claims.
62. Because Philadelphia has not paid according to the Policy terms, CAl
been damaged. CAl has paid for Defense Costs without being reimbursed the
same. CAl has had to advance Defense Costs that it would not have had to
advance but for Philadelphia's intransigence. CAl has had to engage legal counsel
to enforce its rights under the Policy.
63. CAl has suffered the foregoing damages despite having paid
substantial premiums to Philadelphia for the Policy.
64. CAl is entitled to a judgment in its favor and against Philadelphia in
an amount proven at trial that will compensate CAl for the damages incurred by
Philadelphia's breach of the Policy, together with CAl's reasonable attorney's fees
and costs.
65. Once CAl provided notice to Philadelphia of the Claims, it should
have paid, advanced or reimbursed the Defense Costs. The Defense Costs are an
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial - 17
18. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 18 of 23
amount certain due on a date certain and, as a result, CAl is entitled to recover pre
judgment interest on the amount owed at the rate of 10% per annum.
COUNT III
UNFAIR TRADE PRACITCES
66. CAl incorporates by reference the enumerated paragraphs above, as if
fully set forth herein.
67. CAl properly gave Philadelphia notice of the Claims and the Claims
included "Wrongful Acts" and "Claims," as those terms are defined in the Policy.
68. Philadelphia knew it had an obligation to advance timely and
complete Defense Costs for the Claims.
69. Philadelphia wrongfully refused (and continues to refuse) to pay and
advance the reasonable and necessary Defense Costs incurred by CAl for itself and
Mortenson.
70. Philadelphia unreasonably withheld (and continues to withhold)
payment of reasonable and necessary Defense Costs despite CAl's full compliance
with all Policy requirements. Such withholding is with the wrongful intent of
depriving CAl of its rights.
71. Philadelphia failed to use reasonable care in the exercise ofits
relationship with CAL Philadelphia has not acted as a reasonable insurer would
have acted under the same or similar facts and circumstances.
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial - 18
19. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 19 of 23
72. Philadelphia's actions in regard to CAl's claims for Defense Costs
were without justification or excuse. At worse, they were taken in bad faith and
without regard to the adverse effect it would have on CAL At best, Philadelphia's
conduct is grossly negligent and oppressive. In any event, its actions were taken to
further Philadelphia's own improper objectives and with disregard for the interests
of CAI, to the prejudice and detriment of CAl in violation of Montana law.
73. Philadelphia has violated subparagraphs (1), (4), and (5) of Montana's
Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 33-18-20 I, MCA, by misrepresenting pertinent
facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverage at issue, by refusing to pay
claims for Defense Cost without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon
all available information, and/or by failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims
within a reasonable time, causing CAl to suffer injury, damage and loss, giving
rise to a general tort action in favor of CAl pursuant to Section 33-18-242, MCA.
74. Philadelphia knew at all times that it was unlawful to misrepresent
pertinent facts or Policy provisions relating to coverage at issue in handling claims.
75. Philadelphia knew at all times that it was unlawful to disregard
pertinent policy provisions and/or refuse to pay claims without conducting a
reasonable investigation based upon all available information, and giving due
consideration to the plain language of its insurance contract, both as to the
particular facts and the applicable law governing the claim.
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial- 19
20. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 20 of 23
76. Philadelphia knew at all times that in return for the premiums paid by
CAl, it was obligated to adjust, pay and advance Defense Costs in accordance with
the terms, provisions and requirements of the Policy and Montana law.
77. Philadelphia knowingly applied its own internal procedures and rules
in intentional and conscious disregard of the applicable provisions of the Policy
and Montana law, all for the purpose of enhancing its profit at CAl's expense and
gaining unfair advantage over its competitors, and in conscious disregard of the
certainty that CAl, which had the right to rely and did rely upon Philadelphia's
false promises and misrepresentations, would suffer injury as a result.
78. At all relevant times, Philadelphia acted in conscious disregard of, or
indifference to, the knowledge that its arbitrary and unjustifiable conduct injured
CAl, and did so pursuant to policies, procedures and programs designed and
calculated to justify wrongdoing in the process of adjusting legitimate claims and
evade the responsibility imposed upon all legitimate insurers to reimburse insureds
in strict accordance with the promises set forth in the Policy.
79. Philadelphia's acts, decisions, and conduct clearly and convincingly
demonstrate actual malice, actual fraud, or both. CAl is entitled to a judgment in
its favor and against Philadelphia for punitive damages in an amount to be proven
at trial. CAl should be awarded such damages against CAl for the purpose of
disgorging from Philadelphia all ill-gotten gains obtained through such wrongful
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial" 20
21. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 21 of 23
behavior, taking the profit out of unlawful claim handling practices, punishing and
making an example of Philadelphia sufficient to deter similar fraudulent and
malicious behavior by it and all other insurers doing business in Montana now and
forever in the future, all in accordance with the strict procedural and substantive
protections afforded by Montana law.
80. As a result of Philadelphia's wrongful conduct, CAl has been required
to obtain counsel to represent its interests in pursuing this claim. As a result, CAl
has incurred, and will continue to incur, attorney's fees and litigation expenses in
order to establish its right to compensation for Defense Costs under the Policy.
WHEREFORE, CAl respectfully prays for the Court grant CAl the
following relief;
1. Issue a judgment in favor of CAl and against Philadelphia declaring
that Philadelphia, as a matter of fact and law, is obligated to pay and advance all
sums for all of the Defense Costs CAl incurred for itself and Mortenson for the
Claims, and that Philadelphia's duty to pay and advance all of the Defense Costs
will continue until the Claims are finally resolved;
2. Issue a judgment in favor of CAl and against Philadelphia for
Philadelphia's breach of the terms of the Policy and awarding CAl compensatory
damages and pre-judgment interest as proven at trial;
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial - 2 J
22. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 22 of 23
3. Issue a judgment in favor of CAl and against Philadelphia for
Philadelphia's violation of Montana's Unfair Trade Practices Act, awarding CAl
compensatory and punitive damages as proven at trial;
4. Issue a judgment in favor of CAl and against Philadelphia awarding
CAl its reasonable attorney's fees incurred in this matter, together with costs and
disbursements as allowed by law or in equity; and
5. Issue an Order granting CAl such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper under the circumstances.
DATED this 31 st day of October, 2012.
MATOVICH, KELLER & MURPHY, P.C.
By: lsi Carey E. Matovich
Carey E. Matovich
Jesse Myers
KASTING, KAUFFMAN & MERSEN, p.e.
By: lsi John M Kaufftnan
John M. Kauffinan
Lilia Tyrrell
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff Central Asia Institute hereby demands a jury for all issues properly
triable by a jury in this matter.
DATED this 31 st day of October, 2012.
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial - 22
23. Case 2:12-cv-00075-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/31/12 Page 23 of 23
MATOVICH, KELLER & MURPHY, P.e.
By: /s/ Carey E. Matovich
Carey E. Matovich
Jesse Myers
KASTING, KAUFFMAN & MERSEN, P.e.
By: /s/ John M Kaufftnan
John M. Kauffman
Lilia Tyrrell
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial- 23