Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 1 of 18 PAGEID #: 284

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION (CINCINNATI)
JEFFREY DECKER and MARIA
DECKER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CHUBB NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.
and CHUBB & SON INC., a Division of
Federal Insurance Company,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:15-cv-88
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS
CHUBB NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY AND CHUBB & SON INC.
TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,
COUNTERCLAIMS AND
JURY DEMAND
(JURY DEMAND ENDORSED
HEREON)

Defendants, Chubb National Insurance Company (“Chubb National”) and Chubb & Son
Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through the undersigned counsel, for their Answer to
the Complaint by Plaintiffs, Jeffrey Decker and Maria Decker (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), state the
following:
1.

Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants admit, upon information and belief,

that as of January 10, 2014, Plaintiffs are husband and wife, but only Plaintiff Maria Decker held
title to the property identified as 9645 Cunningham Road, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45243 (hereinafter
“the Deckers’ residence”). Defendants also admit that Plaintiffs used that property as a residence
up until January 10, 2014, when it was damaged by fire. Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any remaining allegations contained in
paragraph 1 and therefore deny same.
2.

Defendants admit that Chubb National is a corporation organized under the laws

of the State of Indiana, having its principal place of business at 15 Mountain View Road,

LEGAL\22288855\1 00012.0041.000/362117.000

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 2 of 18 PAGEID #: 285

Warren, New Jersey 07059. Defendants further admit that Chubb National is licensed to do
business in Ohio and is engaged in the business of selling insurance policies, including
homeowners and automobile insurance policies, to the general public. Defendants admit that
Chubb National sold its Policy No. 13127867-05 (“the Policy”) to Plaintiffs. Defendants deny
any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 2.
3.

Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants admit that Chubb & Son Inc.,

incorrectly identified in the caption of the Complaint as “a division of Federal Insurance
Company”, is a New York corporation, having its principal place of business at 15 Mountain
View Road, Warren, New Jersey 07059. Defendants deny that Chubb & Son Inc. is licensed to
do business in Ohio, or is engaged in the business of selling insurance, issuing insurance policies,
or any management, claims or investigation services on behalf of Defendant, Chubb National.
Chubb & Son Inc. had no involvement in any matters alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and should
be dismissed from this action for the reasons stated in Defendants’ Second Affirmative Defense,
which is incorporated herein by reference as if fully rewritten here. Defendants deny any
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 3.
4.

Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants admit that Chubb National issued its

Policy No. 13127867-05 to Plaintiffs for the period February 2, 2013 to February 2, 2014,
subject to all of the Policy’s terms, conditions and exclusions. Defendants admit that Exhibit
“A” to Plaintiffs’ Complaint appears to be a copy of the Policy. Defendants deny any remaining
allegations contained in paragraph 4.
5.

Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants admit that the Policy provided

coverage for the structures at 9645 Cunningham Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45243 (hereinafter
“9645 Cunningham Road” or “the Deckers’ residence”), subject to all of the Policy’s terms,

2

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 3 of 18 PAGEID #: 286

conditions and exclusions. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ characterization of the coverages
afforded by the Policy because it is a written contract that speaks for itself and is the best
evidence of its contents.
6.

Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants admit that the Policy provided

coverage for personal property and contents at 9645 Cunningham Road, subject to all of the
Policy’s terms, conditions and exclusions. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ characterization of the
coverages afforded by the Policy because it is a written contract that speaks for itself and is the
best evidence of its contents.
7.

Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants admit that the Policy provided

coverage for property damage to the motor vehicles scheduled on the Policy, subject to all of the
Policy’s terms, conditions and exclusions. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ characterization of the
coverages afforded by the Policy because it is a written contract that speaks for itself and is the
best evidence of its contents.
8.

Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants admit, upon information and belief,

that as of January 10, 2014, only Plaintiff Maria Decker held title to the Deckers’ residence.
Defendants also admit that Plaintiffs used that property as a residence up until January 10, 2014,
when it was damaged by fire. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 1 and therefore
deny the same.
9.

Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants admit that the Policy provided

coverage for damage to the Deckers’ residence, subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions in
the Policy. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ characterization of the coverages afforded by the Policy
because it is a written contract that speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents.

3

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 4 of 18 PAGEID #: 287

10.

Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants admit that the Policy provided

coverage for damage to personal property located at the Deckers’ residence, subject to the terms,
conditions and exclusions in the Policy. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ characterization of the
coverages afforded by the Policy because it is a written contract that speaks for itself and is the
best evidence of its contents.
11.

Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants admit that the Policy provides

coverage for property damage to the motor vehicles scheduled in the Policy, subject to all of the
terms, conditions and exclusions in the Policy. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ characterization of
the coverages afforded by the Policy because it is a written contract that speaks for itself and is
the best evidence of its contents.
12.

Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants admit that, on or about January 10,

2014, a fire occurred at the Deckers’ residence causing substantial damage to the structure(s), the
personal property therein and a scheduled motor vehicle parked in a garage of the residence at
the time of the fire. Defendants deny any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 12.
13.

Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants admit that the Policy provides

coverage for loss by fire, subject to all of the terms, conditions and exclusions in the Policy.
Defendants deny all remaining allegations contained in paragraph 13.
14.

Denied.
COUNT ONE

15.

Defendants restate and incorporate herein, as if fully rewritten herein, all previous

responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
16.

Denied.

17.

Denied.

18.

Admitted.
4

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 5 of 18 PAGEID #: 288

19.

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs’ Complaint purports to seek a declaration of their

rights and damages under the Policy. Defendants deny all remaining allegations contained in
paragraph 19.
COUNT TWO
20.

Defendants restate and incorporate herein, as if fully rewritten herein, all previous

responses to paragraphs 1 through 19 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
21.

Defendants admit that Chubb National issued its Policy No. 13127867-05 to

Plaintiffs effective for the period February 2, 2013 to February 2, 2014 and that Plaintiffs paid
the premium for that policy and gave timely notice of their claim. Defendants deny all
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 21.
22.

Denied.

23.

Admitted.

24.

Denied.

25.

Denied.
COUNT THREE

26.

Defendants restate and incorporate herein, as if fully rewritten herein, all previous

responses to paragraphs 1 through 25 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
27.

Denied.

28.

Denied.

29.

Denied.
COUNT FOUR

30.

Defendants restate and incorporate herein, as if fully rewritten herein, all previous

responses to paragraphs 1 through 29 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

5

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 6 of 18 PAGEID #: 289

31.

Denied.

Plaintiffs’ WHEREFORE paragraph does not contain any factual allegations to which
Defendants are required to respond; however, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any
relief whatsoever.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Failure to state a claim)
32.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Improper joinder of Chubb & Son Inc.)

33.

Defendant, Chubb & Son Inc., did not issue the Policy and does not have any

contractual relationship or privity with Plaintiff. Chubb & Son, Inc. did not engage in or provide
any management services, claims or investigative services on behalf of Defendant, Chubb
National, in regard to Plaintiffs’ claims as alleged in the Complaint. Chubb & Son Inc.: (a) is
not an insurance company, (b) is not licensed to engage in the business of insurance in any state,
(c) does not accept applications for insurance contracts or sell insurance, (d) does not issue
insurance policies, (e) does not collect premiums, (f) does not service insurance policies, and (g)
does not transact any other insurance business in any state or jurisdiction. Accordingly,
Defendant, Chubb & Son Inc., is an improper party-defendant and should be dismissed from this
action, with prejudice.
THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Concealment and fraud bars coverage)
34.

The Policy under which Plaintiffs have made claim contains the following

conditions:

6

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 7 of 18 PAGEID #: 290

General Conditions
These conditions apply to your policy in general, and to each
coverage in it.
*
*
*
Concealment or fraud.
We do not provide coverage if you or any covered person has intentionally
concealed or misrepresented any material fact relating to this policy before or
after a loss.
35.

Plaintiffs, Jeffrey Decker and Maria Decker, during the course of Chubb

National’s investigation of the January 10, 2014 fire at the Deckers’ residence (hereinafter “the
Fire”), including during post-loss interviews with Chubb National claim investigators, during
their sworn examinations under oath (hereinafter “EUO”) taken pursuant to the Policy’s terms
and conditions and in a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss to Chubb National dated September
10, 2014, signed by both Plaintiffs, intentionally concealed and misrepresented material facts
relating to the policy.
36.

On January 10, 2014, a fire destroyed most of the Deckers’ residence, a sprawling

14,000+ square foot house located at 9645 Cunningham Road.
37.

In statements to public authorities and Chubb National after the fire, Jeffrey

Decker admitted that he was the last known person to be inside 9645 Cunningham Road on
January 10, 2014, before the Fire was discovered, and he claimed to have left the residence that
day sometime between approximately 12:45 p.m. and approximately 1:30 p.m.
38.

In statements made to the public authorities and to Chubb National after the loss,

Jeffrey Decker claimed that he was last inside 9645 Cunningham Road at about 1:30 p.m. on
January 10, 2014, and everything in the residence appeared to be normal at that time and he did
not notice anything wrong at the residence, but he let the two family dogs out of the house before
his departure.

7

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 8 of 18 PAGEID #: 291

39.

The two Decker family dogs were not inside the Deckers’ residence at the time of

the Fire. First responders to the Fire observed the two dogs roaming around the property and
neither pet was injured by the Fire.
40.

The Fire was first discovered by a witness located at a nearby property. The

witness saw smoke rising from beyond a tree line at about 3:14 p.m. and promptly reported the
fire to the Indian Hill Rangers (the local police).
41.

At about the same time, another witness at another nearby property also saw

smoke coming from the vicinity of 9645 Cunningham Road. The witness walked towards the
smoke to investigate and, as the Deckers’ residence came into view, the witness observed a
substantial fire in the area in the house where the kitchen was located and the fire had already
burned through the roof of the house at that location.
42.

First responding fire units from the Madeira-Indian Hill Fire Department arriving

at the fire scene at 9645 Cunningham Road at about 3:31 p.m. found heavy fire coming through
the roof in the eastern half of the house, where the kitchen was located.
43.

Although the Deckers’ residence was equipped with a fire detection system

connected to an audible exterior alarm that Plaintiff Maria Decker has described as “ear
piercing” and the system was designed to transmit a fire alarm to the Indian Hill Rangers’
station, witnesses at nearby properties alerted to the fire by the smoke did not report hearing any
audible alarm coming from the house, and no fire alarm from the Deckers’ system was
transmitted to the Indian Hill Rangers’ station on the day of the fire.
44.

Responding fire units were unable to control or contain the Fire and it ultimately

destroyed most of the residence.

8

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 9 of 18 PAGEID #: 292

45.

The Fire was investigated by the Hamilton County Fire Investigation Unit

(“HCFIU”), the Ohio State Fire Marshal and an independent fire investigator retained by Chubb
National for the purpose of determining the origin and cause of the fire.
46.

On information and belief, the cause of the Fire at the Deckers’ residence is

presently classified as undetermined by the HCFIU and the Ohio State Fire Marshal, but their
investigation into the cause of the fire remains open.
47.

On information and belief, fire investigators who have examined the scene of the

Fire have concluded from the evidence that the Fire origin area was in and around the kitchen of
the Deckers’ residence.
48.

Jeffrey Decker testified at his EUO on October 22 and 23, 2014, that he had his

AT&T cellphone with him throughout the day on January 10, 2014.
49.

An independent engineering analysis of the AT&T records for the cellphone that

was used by Jeffrey Decker on January 10, 2014, has determined that contrary to Jeffrey
Decker’s statements and sworn EUO testimony, he was not miles away at a construction job site
in Blue Ash, Ohio, as he has claimed, but instead was at and around the Deckers’ residence from
approximately 2:09 p.m. until approximately 2:58 p.m. on January 10, 2014, which was about 16
minutes before smoke from the Fire was first observed by a witness at a nearby property at about
3:14 p.m.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Decker’s Intentional
Material Concealments and Misrepresentations
50.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Decker’s intentional material concealments and

misrepresentations to Chubb National after the loss include, but may not be limited to the
following:
A. the true facts and circumstances concerning conditions at the Deckers’ residence,
his whereabouts and his activities on the day of the Fire and, in particular, his
9

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 10 of 18 PAGEID #: 293

whereabouts, his activities and conditions at the Deckers’ residence between
approximately 2:09 p.m. and 2:58 p.m. that day, which was shortly before the Fire
was discovered by witnesses at nearby properties;
B. the true facts concerning the costs incurred by Plaintiffs to construct the house at
9645 Cunningham Road;
C. the true facts of Plaintiffs’ financial condition prior to the Fire;
D. the true facts and circumstances concerning the type and amount of currency in
the safe(s) in 9645 Cunningham Road at the time of the Fire; and
E. the Sworn Statement of Proof of Loss to Chubb National signed by Jeffrey
Decker and Maria Decker on September 10, 2014, in which Jeffrey Decker falsely
stated:
The above referenced loss did not originate by any act,
design or procurement on the part of Jeff [or] Maria…
Decker and nothing has been done by or with the privity or
consent of Jeff [or] Maria… Decker to violate the
conditions of the policy or render it void; no articles are
mentioned in this Proof of Loss or in the annex schedules
but such as were destroyed or damaged at the time of the
loss. No property saved has been in any manner concealed,
and no attempt to deceive the Chubb Company, as to the
extent to said loss has in any manner been made.
Plaintiff Maria Decker’s Intentional
Material Concealments and Misrepresentations
51.

Maria Decker’s intentional material concealments and misrepresentations to

Chubb National after the loss include, but may not be limited to the following:
A. the true facts and circumstances concerning communications by Jeffrey Decker
and Maria Decker to another family member and realtors before the Fire
regarding Plaintiffs’ desire to sell 9645 Cunningham Road;
B. the true facts concerning the costs incurred by Plaintiffs to construct the house at
9645 Cunningham Road; and
C. the true facts of Plaintiffs’ financial condition prior to the Fire; and
D. the Sworn Statement of Proof of Loss to Chubb National signed by Jeffrey
Decker and Maria Decker on September 10, 2014, in which Maria Decker falsely
stated:
10

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 11 of 18 PAGEID #: 294

The above referenced loss did not originate by any act,
design or procurement on the part of Jeff [or] Maria…
Decker and nothing has been done by or with the privity or
consent of Jeff [or] Maria… Decker to violate the
conditions of the policy or render it void; no articles are
mentioned in this Proof of Loss or in the annex schedules
but such as were destroyed or damaged at the time of the
loss. No property saved has been in any manner concealed,
and no attempt to deceive the Chubb Company, as to the
extent to said loss has in any manner been made.
52.

Plaintiffs’ intentional concealments and misrepresentations during their post-loss

interviews, their EUOs and in their Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss constitute material
concealments and misrepresentations by them designed, inter alia: (a) to deflect the focus of
Chubb National’s investigation into the cause of the Fire away from Plaintiffs and their potential
involvement in causing the Fire, (b) to prevent Chubb National and the public authorities
investigating the origin and cause of the Fire from questioning Jeffrey Decker about his activities
at the Deckers’ residence on January 10, 2014 and, in particular, his actions and his observations
of conditions in or around the house during the period from approximately 2:09 p.m. to
approximately 2:58 p.m. when he was in and around the house shortly before the Fire was
discovered by witnesses at nearby properties, (c) to create a false alibi for Jeffrey Decker as to
his alleged whereabouts and activities on January 10, 2014 before the discovery of the Fire, and
(d) to conceal Plaintiffs’ potential motive to intentionally destroy the house at 9645 Cunningham
Road to collect the fire insurance proceeds.
53.

Each of the aforementioned material concealments and misrepresentations by

Plaintiffs, Jeffrey Decker and Maria Decker, violated the “Concealment or fraud” General
Condition of the Policy set forth above, thereby barring all coverage under the Policy for the fire
loss as to both Plaintiffs, and barring any recovery by Plaintiffs and any insured under the Policy.

11

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 12 of 18 PAGEID #: 295

54.

Chubb National reserves the right to supplement and amend the summary of

Plaintiffs’ intentional material concealments and misrepresentations as may be further revealed
through discovery in this action.
FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Waiver and/or estoppel may bar claim)
55.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint may be barred by the doctrines of waiver and/or estoppel.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Defendants acted in good faith and with reasonable justification)

56.

Plaintiffs’ claims for alleged consequential extra-contractual damages for alleged

bad faith conduct are barred and Plaintiffs’ alleged damages are not recoverable because
Defendant Chubb National (the only Defendant involved in the claim investigation), at all times
during the investigation of Plaintiffs’ claims arising out of the January 10, 2014 fire at the
Deckers’ residence, acted in good faith and had a reasonable justification for its claim
investigation, a reasonable justification for all of its requests for cooperation addressed to the
Plaintiffs during that claim investigation and actions therein. Insurance coverage in this matter
is, at a minimum, fairly debatable.
SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Punitive damages are barred)
57.

Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages are barred because Defendants’ actions

were never wanton, malicious, arbitrary or capricious. Defendant, Chubb National, acted in
good faith at all times and had reasonable justification for each of its actions taken during the
claim investigation and actions therein. Insurance coverage in this matter is, at a minimum,
fairly debatable.

12

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 13 of 18 PAGEID #: 296

SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Attorneys’ fees not collectable)
58.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a valid claim for attorneys’ fees.
EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Policy terms, conditions and exclusion control recovery)

59.

Without admitting any liability whatsoever to Plaintiffs or the amount of same,

Defendants aver that any amounts that may be determined to be recoverable by Plaintiffs under
the Policy are subject to all Policy terms, conditions, and exclusions.
NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Business property claim excluded)
60.

Without admitting any liability whatsoever to Plaintiffs or the amount of same,

Defendants aver that the Policy excludes coverage for “business property,” other than as
provided under “Extra Coverages” as set forth in the Ohio Deluxe Contents Coverage form on
pages C-3 and C-4.
TENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Failure to mitigate damages)
61.

Without admitting any liability to Plaintiffs or the amount of same. Defendants

aver that Plaintiffs’ damages may be barred or limited by the Plaintiffs’ failure to mitigate their
damages at and after the loss.
ELEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Credit, setoff and limitation of damages)
62.

Without admitting any liability whatsoever to Plaintiffs or the amount of same,

Defendants aver that Chubb National is entitled to a credit, set-off, reduction, and/or limitation of
damages pursuant to the Policy, any applicable statutes, or otherwise for prior claim advances
made to Plaintiffs by Defendant, Chubb National, pursuant to a Reservation of Rights.

13

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 14 of 18 PAGEID #: 297

TWELFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Right to amend reserved)
63.

Subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Court Orders, Defendants

reserve the right to amend this Answer, including but not limited to, by adding additional
affirmative defenses and counterclaims that may be appropriate based upon additional facts that
may be uncovered and learned through litigation discovery in this action.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendants, Chubb
National Insurance Company and Chubb & Son Inc., pray that the same be dismissed and that
judgment be rendered in favor of Defendants, and that Defendants recover their costs expended
herein as well as any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS
BY CHUBB NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT
64.

Chubb National hereby restates herein, as if fully rewritten herein, Paragraphs 1 -

31 of its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and Paragraphs 32 - 63 of its Affirmative Defenses.
65.

On or about January 10, 2014, Plaintiffs presented a notice of claim to Chubb

National in connection with the Fire that occurred on that same date at 9645 Cunningham Road.
66.

Chubb National timely responded to the claim and investigated the claim.

67.

As part of its investigation, Chubb National’s representatives took recorded

statements of certain witnesses, including Plaintiffs, examined Plaintiffs under oath and retained
experts to determine the cause and origin of the fire at the residence.
68.

Chubb National, acting in good faith and subject to reservation of rights letters

provided to Plaintiffs during the claim investigation, issued the following advance payments to
Plaintiffs: $25,000.00 for extra living expenses; $502,383.17 for personal property/contents in
the Deckers’ residence at the time of the Fire; $24,425.00 for the agreed value of a 2003 SL500
14

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 15 of 18 PAGEID #: 298

Mercedes-Benz that was parked in the garage at 9645 Cunningham Road at the time of the Fire;
and $147,046.12 for fire debris removal at 9645 Cunningham Road.
69.

During the course of Chubb National’s investigation of the claim, the Plaintiffs

made intentional material concealments and misrepresentations to Chubb National relating to the
Policy as outlined above.
70.

The aforementioned intentional and material concealments and representations

made to Chubb National by Plaintiffs regarding the Policy were known by Plaintiffs to be
incorrect and false.
71.

By virtue of these intentional material concealments and misrepresentations,

Plaintiffs violated the “Concealment or fraud” provision of the Policy under which Plaintiffs
have made claim.
WHEREFORE, Chubb National Insurance Company, demands that the insurance policy
issued by Chubb National Insurance Company to Plaintiffs, Jeffrey and Maria Decker, covering
9645 Cunningham Road, Cincinnati, Ohio, be voided and judgment be entered in its favor and
against Jeffrey and Maria Decker, together with interest, costs and attorneys’ fees and such other
relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT II – UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND RESTITUTION FOR MONEY PAID
72.

Chubb National hereby restates herein, as if fully rewritten herein, Paragraphs 1 -

31 of its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and Paragraphs 32 - 63 of its Affirmative Defenses.
73.

Chubb National conferred a benefit upon the Plaintiffs by issuing advance

payments to Plaintiffs totaling $698,854.29.
74.

Plaintiffs had an appreciation or knowledge of the benefit.

15

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 16 of 18 PAGEID #: 299

75.

Plaintiffs had knowledge of the benefits, and accepted and retained the benefits

under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for the Plaintiffs to retain such benefits.
76.

As outlined above, the Plaintiffs made material concealments and

misrepresentations to Chubb National during the course of the investigation of the fire loss at
issue in this matter.
77.

Chubb National reasonably relied on Plaintiffs’ misrepresentations, concealments,

acts and omissions, inter alia, in making advance payments to Plaintiffs, subject to a reservation
of rights, in connection with Plaintiffs’ fire insurance claims.
78.

As a result of Plaintiffs’ concealments and misrepresentations and the Fire, Chubb

National was obligated to and did issue the following payments: $25,000.00 for extra living
expenses; $502,383.17 for contents damage; $24,425.00 for destruction of a 2003 SL500
Mercedes-Benz; and $147,046.12 for debris removal.
79.

Plaintiffs had actual and constructive knowledge that the monies paid under the

Policy were obtained through their concealments and misrepresentations as averred above.
80.

Plaintiffs accepted and kept the monies paid directly to them by Chubb National

knowing that they were obtained from Chubb National by fraud.
81.

Plaintiffs benefited from Chubb National bearing the costs of damage to their

motor vehicle and debris removal, as well as receiving the advances on extra living expenses and
damage to contents.
82.

If Plaintiffs are permitted to retain these monies, Plaintiffs will be unjustly

enriched and Chubb National will suffer harm.
83.

Plaintiffs should not be permitted to retain monies obtained through false and

fraudulent representations, concealments, acts and omissions as averred above. Therefore,

16

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 17 of 18 PAGEID #: 300

Plaintiffs have an equitable duty to disgorge and convey such proceeds back and make restitution
to Chubb National.
WHEREFORE, Counterclaim Plaintiff, Chubb National Insurance Company, demands
that judgment be entered in its favor and against Counterclaim Defendants, Jeffrey Decker and
Maria Decker, for restitution in the amount of $698,854.29 to Chubb National Insurance
Company, together with interest, costs and attorneys’ fees and such other relief as this Court
deems appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
Defendants hereby demand a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,

OF COUNSEL:
Michael W. Hawkins (0012707)
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
255 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Tel: (513) 977-8200
Fax: (513) 977-8141
Email: mike.hawkins@dinsmore.com

/s/ Gregory A. Harrison
Gregory A. Harrison (0029814)
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Tel: (513) 977-8200
Fax: (513) 977-8141
Email: greg.harrison@dinsmore.com
Trial Attorney for Defendants
Chubb National Insurance Company
and Chubb & Son Inc.

Thomas McKay, III
COZEN O’CONNOR, PC
Liberty View, Suite 300
457 Haddonfield Road
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Direct Dial: 856-910-5012
Direct Fax: 877-259-7983
Email: tmckay@cozen.com
(Admission Pro Hac Vice pending)

17

 Case: 1:15-cv-00088-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 18 of 18 PAGEID #: 301

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on this 3rd day of April, 2015, the foregoing was electronically filed
via CM/ECF and was served upon the below-listed counsel for Plaintiffs via CM/ECF on the
aforementioned date:
Gary F. Franke
William M. Bristol
GARY F. FRANKE CO., L.P.A.
120 East 4th Street, Suite 1040
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s/ Gregory A. Harrison
Gregory A. Harrison

18