You are on page 1of 17

Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 1 of 16

Bruce A. Maak (2033)


Jeffrey D. Stevens (8496)
PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
185 South State Street, Suite 800
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
801 257 7928 telephone
801 552 7750 fax
brnaak@parrbrown.corn
jstevens@parrbrown.com
Thomas B. Alleman TX SBN 01017485
COX SMITH MATTHEWS INCORPORATED
1201 Elm, Suite 3300
Dallas, Texas 75270
214 698 7830 telephone
214 698 7899 fax
tallernan@coxsmith.com
Pro Hac Vice Pending

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

HEADWATERS RESOURCES INC,


A Utah Corporation
10653 South River Front Parkway COMPLAINT
Suite 300
South Jordan, Utah 84095
Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-1079
Plaintiff,
Judge Dee Benson
VS.

ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE CO.


An Illinois Corporation, ACE JURY DEMANDED
AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.
A Pennsylvania Corporation,
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.,
AMERICAN GUARANTEE &
LIABILITY INSURANCE CO., and
STEADFAST INSURANCE CO.,

Defendants

COMPLAINT Page 1
2745622.1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 2 of 16

Headwater Resources Inc, complains of Defendants as follows:

I. JURISDICTION, PARTIES AND VENUE.

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332,

As explained in this Complaint, there exists complete diversity of citizenship between

the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000 exclusive of costs, interest

and fees.

2, Plaintiff Headwaters Resources Inc. ["Headwaters"[ is a corporation in

good standing whose sole domicile is in the state of Utah and whose sole principal

place of business is located at 10653 South River Front Parkway, Suite 300, South

Jordan, Salt Lake County, Utah 84095.

3. Defendant Illinois Union Insurance Co. ["Illinois Unionl is an insurance

company that is authorized to and regularly does issue policies of insurance in the state
of Utah. Illinois Union's sole domicile is in the state of Illinois and its sole principal

place of business is located at 436 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.

4. Defendant ACE American Insurance Co. f"ACE Americanl is an

insurance company that is authorized to and regularly does issue policies of insurance

in the state of Utah. ACE American's sole domicile is in the state of Pennsylvania and

its sole principal place of business is located at 436 Walnut Street, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19106.

COMPLAINT Page 2
2745622.1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 3 of 16

5. Defendants Illinois Union and ACE American are corporate affiliates

sharing a common ultimate parent and a common claims-handling organization.

Defendants Illinois Union and ACE American are sometimes referred to in this

Complaint as "the ACE defendants."

6. Defendant Zurich American Insurance Co. ["Zurich American"( is an

insurance company that is authorized to and regularly does issue policies of insurance

in the state of Utah. Zurich American's sole domicile is in the state of New York and its

sole principal place of business is located at 1400 American Lane, Schaumberg, Illinois

60196.

7. Defendant American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co. ["American

Guarantee"( is an insurance company that is authorized to and regularly does issue

policies of insurance in the state of Utah. American Guarantee's sole domicile is in the

state of New York and its sole principal place of business is located at 1400 American

Lane, Schaumberg, Illinois 60196.

8. Defendant Steadfast Insurance Co. ["Steadfast"( is a surplus lines

insurance company that regularly issues policies of insurance in the state of Utah.

Steadfast's sole domicile is in the state of Delaware and its sole principal place of

business is located at 1400 American Lane, Schaumberg, Illinois 60196,

9. Defendants Zurich American, American Guarantee and Steadfast are

corporate affiliates sharing a common ultimate parent. Defendants Zurich American,

COMPLAINT Page 3
2745622.1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 4 of 16

American Guarantee and Steadfast are sometimes referred to in this Complaint as "the

Zurich defendants."

10. Each Defendant regularly transacts business in Utah through the sale of

insurance policies and the adjustment of claims in the state of Utah. The ACE

Defendants issued policies of insurance insuring Headwaters at a time when

Headwaters was both domiciled in and a resident of the state of Utah. This Court may

therefore jurisdiction Defendants to UTAH CODE ANN,


properly exercise over pursuant

§7813-3-205(1) and (5).


11, Venue for this action is properly laid in this District and Division pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claims

asserted in this case, including but not limited to negotiation and delivery of the

insurance policies to Headwaters in the state of Utah and breaches of those contracts,

took place here,


II. BACKGROUND FOR PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS.

a. The ACE Defendants.


12. Illinois Union and ACE American are affiliated entities, having a common

procedures, underwriting staffs and common administrative


parent, common common

personnel. Underwriting information concerning Headwaters obtained by Illinois

Union was available to and shared with ACE American at all times relevant to this

Complaint. Similarly, both Defendants demanded that Headwaters use a captive

140 Broadway 40th Floor, New York, New York 10015, at all
claims organization, ESIS,
COMPLAINT Page 4
2745622.1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 5 of 16

times pertinent to this matter. Information requested by ESIS from Plaintiff as a part of

the claims process is or


may be relied upon by Defendants as a part of their decision to

deny coverage.
13. Prior to issuing any policies to Headwaters and at all pertinent points

thereafter, Defendants were aware of Headwaters' business and of its products and

activities. Defendants were aware at all points pertinent to this matter that Headwaters'

business included the sale of fly ash or coal combustion products. As an example of this

knowledge and of their willingness to underwrite losses based upon the sale of

Headwaters' fly ash products, Illinois Union policy XSL G18381667 contained a

document known as a "Retained Limits Endorsement" setting a Retained Limit of

$15, 000 each occurrence from CCP Division (Fly Ash)." Later policies issued by each

Defendant contained a single retained limit for all of Headwaters' various divisions,

operations and products, but never excluded products coverage for coal combustion

products, fly ash or for the activities of VFL Technology Incorporated, which was added

as a named insured in 2004.

14. Illinois Union issued four policies of general liability insurance insuring

Headwaters among other businesses as follows:

COMPLAINT Page 5
2745622.1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 6 of 16

POLICY NUMBER POLICY TERM LIMITS


X$L G18381667 Mareh---1, .2003.-Mareh 15, $2 million per ocithcnce
2004. $4 milliOn.6-gpepate
XSL G21811300 March 15, 2004-March 15, $2 million per occurrence
2005 $4 million aggregate
XSL- G22078586. MarCh- 15 2005-0c(Ober .1, $2 milliOK pee.-cicCurrence
2005'. $4 million aggregate
XSL G22903639 October 1, 2005-October 1, $2 million per occurrence
2006 $4 million aggregate

15. ACE American issued three policies of general liability insurance insuring

Headwaters among other businesses as follows:

POLICY NUMBER POLICY TERM LIMITS


'...PM1 22904231.:
'04'"million'Aggregate,
PMI 23858800 October 1, 2007-October 1, $2 million per occurrence
2008 $4 million aggregate
pmr.E.0246.$I

16. Each of the Illinois Union and ACE American policies just described takes

the same general form. All provide "occurrence" based coverage; that is, coverage of

accidents, including continuing exposure to substantially the same general harmful

conditions, that occur during the policy period. Likewise, each of the Illinois Union and

ACE American policies provides coverage for "bodily injury" and "property damage"
as defined in the policies. "Bodily injury" as defined in the Illinois Union and ACE

American policies includes claims for injury and disease or for biological injury, even at
the cellular level. "Property damage" as defined in the Illinois Union and ACE

COMPLAINT Page 6
2745622, 1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 7 of 16

American policies includes loss of use of tangible property that has not been injured or

destroyed. The Illinois Union and ACE American policies' provisions governing loss of

use contain "deemer" clauses; that is, even if the loss of use of the property takes place

after the policy has expired it is deemed to have occurred during the policy period or

when the event took place.

17, Each of the Illinois Union and ACE American policies just described is

responsible up to its limits for all damages an insured may be obligated to pay,

regardless of when incurred, because of "bodily injury" or "property damage" during

the policy period.


18. Each of the Illinois Union and ACE American policies just described

obligates its issuing insurer to reimburse Headwaters for defense costs and other

allocated loss adjustment expenses as defined in the policy in excess of the Self-Insured

Retention amount which varies from year to year but never exceeds $50, 000 per year.

Headwaters has exhausted the various policies' Self-Insured Retention amounts or soon

will do so. Under the terms of the policies, as well as applicable law, so long as any

single claim made by a plaintiff creates the potential for coverage under the policy,

Illinois Union and ACE American are obligated to reimburse Headwater for all of its

defense costs above the Self-Insured Retention amount, even if the claims are

groundless, false or fraudulent.


19. Each of the Illinois Union and ACE American policies just described

contains endorsements entirely removing coverage for lead and asbestos. None of the

COMPLAINT Page 7
2745622.1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 8 of 16

Illinois Union and ACE American policies just described contains any exclusion

specifically referring to fly ash or coal combustion products.


20. All premiums for each policy described in paragraphs 14 and 15 of this

Complaint were timely paid in full.

21. Headwaters has timely complied with all conditions precedent to

coverage under each policy described in paragraphs 14 and 15 of this Complaint.

b. The Zurich defendants.


22. Prior to the acquisition of 100 per cent of its stock by Headwaters in April

2004, VFL Technology Corporation purchased primary, umbrella, environmental

impairment and professional consulting errors and omissions coverage from the Zurich

defendants. Like the ACE defendants, the Zurich defendants are affiliated corporate

entities, sharing common ownership and management at the highest levels. The Zurich

defendants also share common procedures, common underwriting staffs and common

administrative personnel. Information about VFL's business before and after

acquisition of its stock by Headwaters was shared by and between the Zurich

defendants. Information requested by Defendants as a part of the claims process may

be used to deny coverage to Headwaters.


23. The Zurich defendants issued three policies of primary general liability

insurance to VFL as follows:

COMPLAINT Page 8
2745622.1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 9 of 16

I POLICY NUMBER I POLICY TERM LIMITS

$2-million.aggegate
American Guarantee & April 1, 2002-Apri11, 2003 $2 million per occurrence
Liability GLO 3769921-01 $4 million aggregate
....A.iiiei4j*.:.:.-...:.::.ii44::ii:(0:i:, ..„.$4: ::'..rj:.:i0i 5i F,1;::2003-j0--....66.:::71::2004'.:: .$%'..:0:11:4:0-:::P.0;31§e-ti(,..04:0.......,'.E:-: : :-:
t I
..Lii.lji iiit6L69
:r..,.
.::::6..1.9.121-,, 02:, s':::, --1•;-• -.1: ...$Zi.tiiilliiiiilAktOg4te

24. Each of the Zurich American and American Guarantee policies just

described takes the same general form. All provide "occurrence" based coverage; that

is, coverage of accidents, including continuing exposure to substantially the same

general harmful conditions, that occur during the policy period. Likewise, each of the

Zurich American and American Guarantee policies provides coverage for "bodily

injury" and "property damage" as defined in the policies. "Bodily injury" as defined in

the Zurich American and American Guarantee policies includes claims for injury and

disease or for biological injury, even at the cellular level. "Property damage" as defined

in the Zurich American and American Guarantee policies includes loss of use of

tangible property that has not been injured or destroyed. The Zurich American and

American Guarantee policies' provisions governing loss of use contain "deemer"

clauses; that is, even if the loss of use of the property takes place after the policy has

it is deemed to have occurred during the policy period when the event took
expired or

place.
25. Each of the Zurich American and American Guarantee policies just

described is responsible up to its limits for all damages an insured may be obligated to

COMPLAINT Page 9
2745622, 1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 10 of 16

pay, regardless of when incurred, because of "bodily injury" or "property damage"

during the policy period.


26. Additionally, each of the Zurich American and American Guarantee

policies just described contains a substantial limitation on the pollution exclusion

normally found in a CGL policy. Specifically, each Zurich American and American

Guarantee policy just listed contained a provision stating that its pollution exclusion

did not apply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of listed products

manufactured, sold handled or distributed by VFL as listed on a schedule in the

applicable endorsement. That schedule specifically resulted in coverage for VFL's

"[Nroducts derived from Industrial or Utility Plant Bi-Products [sic], Contaminated Soil
or Waste/Water Facilities." VFL specifically requested such coverage and paid an

additional premium for it,

27. In addition to the three primary CGL policies just described, Steadfast issued

two policies of umbrella insurance to VFL each with limits of $10 million in addition to

the limits described above as follows:

I POLICY NUMBER I POLICY TERM I LIMITS

aggregate
Steadfast SUO 3825595-01 April 1, 2003-june 1, 2004 $10 million per occurrence/
aggregate

28. These Steadfast policies contained the same provisions found in the

underlying Zurich American and American Guarantee primary policies providing

COMPLAINT Page 10
2745622.1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 11 of 16

coverage for VFL's "fpiroducts derived from Industrial or Utility Plant Bi-Products

[sic], Contaminated Soil or Waste/Water Facilities, VFL specifically requested such

coverage and paid an additional premium for it,

29. In addition to these "occurrence" policies issued by the Zurich defendants

prior to the acquisition of VFL's stock by Headwaters, both VFL before its acquisition

and Headwaters afterward maintained claims made-claims reported policies issued by

Steadfast These are:

POLICY NUMBER AND POLICY TERM LIMITS


TYPE
Steadfast EI'C 5336783-04 Oetober 1, alL/8-October 1, 1 million per occurrence/
Z Choice P011ution 2009 2 million aggiegc te
Liability -policy, on site
and off 'site coverage for
bodilyinjury proper y
damage And clean-up costs

Steadfast PEC 5336780-04 October 1, 2008-October 1, $1 million per occurrence/


Professional 2009 $2 million aggregate
Environmental
Consultant's Liability
Coverage including errors
and omissions coverage
and coverage for ongoing
or completed operations
including fly ash/bottom
ash disposal services.

described in paragraphs 23, 27 and 29 of this


30. All premiums for each policy

Complaint were timely paid in full,


31. Headwaters has timely complied with all conditions precedent to

coverage under each policy described in paragraphs 23, 27, and 29 of this Complaint.
COMPLAINT Page 11
2745622.1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 12 of 16

c. The Underlying litigation.

32. Beginning in late March 2009, Headwaters and VFL Technology

Corporation were named as Defendants in mass tort lawsuits, Fentress Family Trust, et

al., v. Virginia Electric and Power Co., et al., No. CL09-710, and Sears, et al., V. v. Virginia

Electric and Power Co., et A, No. CL09-1914 ["the underlying cases"], each filed in the

Circuit Court for the City of Chesapeake, Virginia. The original Complaints in each of

the underlying cases erroneously named Headwaters Incorporated as a defendant, but

the error has been corrected and Headwaters Resources has been substituted as the

proper party defendant.

33. The Complaints in the underlying cases run to approximately one

thousand pages and allege numerous claims including claims for negligence, products

liability, negligent infliction of emotional distress, nuisance, breach of warranty,

negligent misrepresentation and other claims all arising out of the use of approximately

1.5 million tons of amended coal combustion byproducts allegedly beginning in March
2002 and continuing through 2007 as fill material for the construction of the Battlefield

Golf Club. The Fentress Family Trust complaint alleges, for example, that the golf course
site constituted a nuisance, that Headwaters is liable for a failing to warn about a

defective product and for breaching an express warranty as to the characteristics of the

coal combustion byproducts, and for negligently permitting the material to be placed at
the site without a liner, among other claims. However, neither of the underlying cases

alleges affirmatively or exclusively that Headwaters designed the pit or area where the

COMPLAINT Page 12
2745622.1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 13 of 16

material was placed at the golf course, supervised the construction of the course or

selected the amending material. Headwaters denies all allegations made against it but

analysis of Defendants' obligations to defend Headwaters must rest upon those


any

allegations, because the duty to defend exists even if the allegations in the underlying

cases are groundless, false and fraudulent.

34. Each plaintiff in the underlying cases seeks substantial damages for past,

present, and future bodily injuries, property damage, nuisance vexation as well as for

removal of the coal combustion byproducts from the golf course. Headwaters denies all

claims for damages asserted against it but any analysis of Defendants' obligations to

defend Headwaters must rest upon those allegations, because the duty to defend exists

even if the allegations in the underlying cases are groundless, false and fraudulent.
35. Headwaters promptly tendered the underlying cases to Defendants and

requested that they honor their contractual obligations to defend and indemnify

Headwaters as required by their policies. Instead of doing so, however, Illinois Union

and ACE American have each expressly repudiated the contractual obligations for

which they received substantial premiums from Headwaters and affiliated entities.

and unreserved denied all coverage for the allegations in the


Each has affirmatively

underlying cases and stated that it will not honor any obligation contained in any of the

policies. The Zurich defendants have not provided any response for over six months

since tender was made to them of the underlying lawsuits as to whether they will honor
their contractual obligations under any of the policies described herein,
COMPLAINT Page 13
2745622.1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 14 of 16

36. In the meantime, Headwaters has borne the entire burden of defending

itself in the underlying lawsuit, and has expended over $160, 000 to date in defending

itself, an amount that can reliably be expected to increase dramatically as the

underlying litigation continues,


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count One Breach of Contract


37. Headwaters incorporates paragraphs 1 through 36 by reference as though

fully set forth.


38. Defendants' repudiation of their contractual obligations is a breach of

their contracts that has proximately caused Headwaters to suffer damages including

attorney's fees, allocated loss adjustment expenses and other costs in the underlying

cases and to be exposed to other future losses in an amount greatly in excess of the

minimum jurisdictional authority of this Court.

39, Plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees necessitated to

enforce its rights under the insurance policies described in this case.

Count Two Bad Faith

40, Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 39 by reference as though

fully set forth,


41. By virtue of the provisions in the various policies they issued and for

which they accepted substantial premiums, Defendants are fiduciaries and owe Plaintiff

COMPLAINT Page 14
2745622.1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 15 of 16

the highest degree of care to act fairly and reasonably in the evaluation and disposition

of liability claims against Plaintiff,

42, The ACE defendants have breached this obligation in at least the

following respects: (1) by failing to take into account in their decision to deny coverage
the fact that they accepted substantial premiums from Headwaters with the knowledge
that the CCP material involved in this matter was a product rather than a pollutant as

the terms are used in their policies, thereby rendering Plaintiff's coverage illusory; (2)

by denying coverage based upon "pollution exclusions" in their policies when in fact

the language of those decisions as well as controlling authority construing the decisions

did not support that decision; and (3) by prejudging negatively the circumstances of

the underlying claims and then crafting such investigation as was performed and any

analysis of coverage so as to support that decision rather than being guided by the

language of the policies they issued and controlling authority. Plaintiff reserves the

right to amend to assert other bases in support of this claim as discovery proceeds.
43, The Zurich defendants have breached this obligation at the very least by

failing to respond under any policy issued by any of them for over six months after

being put on notice of the underlying lawsuits, despite the provisions in the policies

described earlier in this complaint, and despite communications from Plaintiff and its

counsel as to the situation, Plaintiff reserves the right to amend to assert other bases in

support of this claim as discovery proceeds.

COMPLAINT Page 15
2745622.1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 16 of 16

44. As a direct and proximate result of these errors and omissions by

Defendants, Plaintiff has sustained substantial damages as set forth above and also by

having to retain counsel in this action to vindicate its rights. Plaintiff prays for recovery

of its attorney's fees in this action and for any other damages it may prove itself entitled

to, including but not limited to recoveries in excess of Defendants' policy limits in the

event settlement opportunities cannot be accepted because of Defendants' wrongful

conduct.

Jury Demand
45. Plaintiff prays for trial by jury on all claims so triable.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in its favor and against Defendants,

for declarations as set forth above, for an award of damages, for its attorney's fees as

prevailing party, for costs, pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law and for

such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Dated this 8th day of December, 2009.

Respectfully submitted,
PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS

/s./ Jeffrey D. Stevens


Bruce A. Maak
Jeffrey D. Stevens
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COX SMITH MATTHEWS INCORPORATED

/s/ Thomas B. Alleman

COMPLAINT Page 16
2745622.1
Case 2:09-cv-01079-DB Document 2-2 Filed 12/08/2009 Page 1 of 1

cta,JS 44 (Rev. 12/07) CIVIL COVER SHEET


The JS 94 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and seryice ofpleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided
by local rules of court, This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is requtred for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating
the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS IllinoiSUnion,..


InSurance Co., Ace
HEADWATERS-RESOURCES, INC., Utah?. a AMerican Insurance Co., Zurich American
Insurance Co., American Guarantee &
corporation,, Liabilityet
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff' Salt-Lake. County of Residence ofFirst Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S, PLAINTIFF CASES).”. (1 N U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY),
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE
Bruce A. Maak (2033'
LAND INVOLVED.
Jeffrey, D.-Stelien(8496)'.
PARR. GEE &:LOVELESS' AtiOnleyS (IfKnown)
185 South State, Suite 8007..
Salt Lake City, UT 84111.
(An1) S.32-78/10 1

IL BASISOFJUIUSDICTION (Place an "X" in ale Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place. an "X" in One Box for Plainliff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
0 1 U.S. Govermnent 0 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF I
Plaintiff (US, Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 0 I 0 1 Incorporated or Principal Place Xl 4 0 4,
of 13usiness In This State

Incorporated a/sr/Principal Place 0 5


0 2 U.S. Government XI 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 0 2 0 2 5 x0
Defendant of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)
Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 0 6 0 6

anti KT A MT ID !IV VI TIP tru

1., .--::-.0N;TRA-Ci TORTS' i'-' --FORFEITURE/PENALTY, BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES I


Insurance PERSONAL, INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 0 610 Agriculinre 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 400 State Reapportionment
OHO
0 120 Marine 0 310 Airplane 0 362 Personal Injury 0 620 Other Food & Drug 0 423 Withdrawal 0 410 Antitrust
CI 130 Miller Act CI 315 Airplane Product Merl. Malpractice 0 625 Drug Related Seizure. 28 USC 157 0 430 Banks and Banking
0 0 365 Personal Injury of Property 21 USC 881 0 450 Commerce
140 Negratiahle Instrument Liability
0 150 Recovety of Oveipapnent 0 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability 0 630 Liquor Laws I PROPERTY RIGHTS 0 460 Deportation
& Enforcement ofiudgment Slander 0 368 Asbestos Personal 0 640 R.R. & Truck 0 820 Copyrights 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and
CI 151 Medicare Act 0 330 Federal Employers' Injury Product 0 650 Airline Regs. 0 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations
0 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 0 660 Occupational 0 840 Trademark 0 480 Constuner Credit
Liability
Student Loans 0 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health 0 490 Cable/Sal TV
0 345 Marine Product n 370 Other Fraud 0 690 Other 0 810 Selective Service
(Excl. Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment 171 371 Truth in Lending TABOR SOCIAL SECURITY' CI 850 Securities/Commodities/
0 Liability
of Veteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle II 380 Other Personal 0 710 Fair Labor Standards 0 861 H1A (I 39511) Exchange
0 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act II 862 Black Lung (923) 0 875 Customer Challenge
a 190 Other Contract Product Liability CI 385 Property Damage 0 720 Labor/Mgrnt. Relations II 863 DIWCID1WW (405(g)) 12 USC 3410
0 195 Contract Product Liability CI 360 Other Personal Product Liability 0 730 Labor/MgmtReporting II 864 S SID Title XVI 0 890 Other Statutory Actions
& Disclosure Act CI 865 R.SI (405(g)) 0 891 Agricultural Acts
a 196 Franchise Injury n

CIVIL RIGHTS -PRISONER PETITIONS: 0 740 Railway Labor Act: FEDERAL TAX SUITS 0 892 Economic Stabilization Act
0 210 Land Condemnation 0 Voting
441 0 510 Motions to Vacate 0 790 Other Labor Litigation 0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 0 893 Enviroranental Matters
0 220 Foreclosure 0 442
Employment Sentence 0 791 Erma]. Ret Inc. or Defendant) 0 894 Energy Allocation Act
0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 443 Housing/ Habeas Corpus: Security Act 0 871 1RS---Third Party 0 895 Freedom of Information
0 240 Torts to Land Accommodations 0 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act
0 245 Tort Product Liability 0 444 Welfare 0 535 Death Penalty s., IMMIGRATION' a 900Appeal of Fee Determination
0 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities 0 540 Mandamus & Other n 462 Naturalization Application Under Equal Access
0 550 Civil Rights CI 46311abeas Corpus to Justice
Employment
0 446 Amer. :iv/Disabilities 0 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee 0 950 Constitutionality of
Other 0 465 Other Immigration State Statutes
0 440 Other Civil Rights Actiorts

V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only) Appeal toDistrict


Transferred from Aidg from
I Original El 2 Removed from 11 3 Remanded from .11 4 Reinstated or n El 6 Multidistrict 7
another district Magistrate
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened. (sneciM Litigation Judgment

I Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you


•1 12 I 1 4- 1 I. 1
are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 11341iefd'e'sCrin' cYause:
1 Breach of Contract
VII. REQUESTED IN 0 'CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 G r eater than $75, 000JURY DEMAND: )o Yes CI No

VIII, RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions):


IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT ti AMOUNT APPLYING 1FP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE