8/12/2019 HERTZ CORPORATION, THE et al v. VANVA, INC. DBA CUBS PARK SERVICE et al complaint

1/8

Case: l :14-cv-01525 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/04/14 Page 1 of 8 PagelD #:1

GVCUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS - EASTERN DIVISION

THE HERTZ CORPORATION and,ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

No.

Plaintiffs,

VANVA INC. d/b/a CUBS PARK SERVICE,JONATHAN HARRIS and EILEEN CARNAHAN,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

NOW COM ES the Plaintiffs, THE HERT Z CORPO RAT ION (hereinafter HE RTZ )

and ACE AME RICAN INSRA NCE CO MPA NY (hereinafter AC E ), by their attorneys,

PAPPAS DAVIDSON O'CONN OR & FILDES P C , in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section

2201 and Rule 57 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, as and for their complaint fordeclaratory judgment against the Defendants, VANVA INC. d/b/a CUBS PARK SERVICE

(hereinafter VA NV A ), JONAT HAN HARR IS and EILEEN CAR NAHA N, allege as

follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for declaratory judgm ent, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Section 2201 and Rule 57 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, to determine a real and

justiciable controversy among the parties with respect to their rights and obligations under the

agency agreement between HERTZ and VANVA (hereinafter the Agency Agreement ) and

the policy of insurance between ACE and VANV A for CARNAHAN's claim of personal

8/12/2019 HERTZ CORPORATION, THE et al v. VANVA, INC. DBA CUBS PARK SERVICE et al complaint

2/8

Case: l:14-cv-01 525 Document : 1 Filed: 03/04/14 Page 2 of 8 PagelD :2

injuries and dam ages arising out of an automobile acciden t that occurred on January 6, 2012,

near the intersection of Waveland and Halsted Streets in Chicago, Illinois (hereinafter the

Claim ). HER TZ seeks an order declaring that VANVA is only entitled to liability coverage

from HERT Z or HE RT Z' insurers under the Agency Agreement for the defense and

indemnification of VAN VA and HARRIS for the Claim in the amount of $100,000.00. AC E

seeks an order declaring that VANVA is not entitled to a defense or indemnification under

ACE policy OGL G22526004.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. HERTZ is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Delaware with itsprincipal place of business in New Jersey. ACE is a corporation incorporated under the laws of

Pennsylvania and its principal place of business is Pennsylvania. VA NVA is a corporation

incorporated under the laws of Illinois and its principal place of business is Illinois. HARRIS is

a citizen of Illinois. CARNAHAN is a citizen of Illinois. The amount in controversy, without

interest or costs, exceeds $75,000 or the sum or value specified in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.

3. Venu e is proper pursuan t to 28 U.S.C . Section 1391 (b)(1) because all the

defendants reside in Illinois and 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 (b)(2) because a substantial part of the

events occurred in Illinois.

THE PARTIES

4. HER TZ is a corporation incorporated in Delaw are with its principal place of

business in New Jersey.

5. ACE is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania with its

principal place of business in Pennsylvania.

8/12/2019 HERTZ CORPORATION, THE et al v. VANVA, INC. DBA CUBS PARK SERVICE et al complaint

3/8

Case: l:14-cv-01 525 Document : 1 Filed: 03/04/14 Page 3 of 8 PagelD :3

6. VANVA is a corporation incorporated in Illinois with its principal place of

business in Illinois.

7. HARRIS is a citizen of Illinois and he is named as a required party pursuant to

Rule 19 (a)(1)(A) of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure.

8. CARNA HAN is a citizen of Illinois and she is named as a required party

pursuant to Rule 19 (a)(1)(A) of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure.

BACKGROUND FACTS

9. On or about September 13, 2010, VANV A and HERT Z entered into the AgencyAgreement. (See, Agency Agreement between VANVA and HERTZ attached as Ex. A).

10. Pursuan t to section 2.1(c) of the Agency Agreement, Hertz agreed to furnish on

behalf of VANVA in connection with VANVA or VANVA's employee's necessary operation

of any vehicle within the scope of the Agency Agreement p rotection against automobile

liability. Such liability protection will be provided against liability to third parties and such

protection will have limits for bodily injury or death up to $100,000 for each person and

$300,000 for each accident, and $25,000 for property damage including HERTZ' responsibility

as vehicle owner. (Ex. A at section 2.1(c)).

11. Pursuan t to section 7.1 of the Agency Agreement, V ANVA , at its expense will

maintain C omprehensive General Liability Insurance ( CG L policy ), including contractual,

personal injury, completed operations and Fire Liability Insurance which covers V AN VA 's

location and V AN VA 's operations but only as respects VA NV A's activities involving rental of

Hertz vehicles. Said insurance will be primary and not excess, with combined limits of

$1,000,000. (Ex. A at section 7.1).

8/12/2019 HERTZ CORPORATION, THE et al v. VANVA, INC. DBA CUBS PARK SERVICE et al complaint

4/8

8/12/2019 HERTZ CORPORATION, THE et al v. VANVA, INC. DBA CUBS PARK SERVICE et al complaint

5/8

Case: l :14-cv-01525 Document #: 1 Fi led: 03/04/14 Page 5 of 8 PagelD #:5

death up to $100,000 for each person and $300,000 for each accident, and $25,000 for property

damage including HE RT Z' responsibility as vehicle ow ner. (Ex. A at section 2.1(c)).

18. On or about January 9, 2014, VA NVA demanded coverage for the Claim under

the Policy.

19. VA NVA is not entitled to coverage for the Claim under the Policy because the

Claim is excluded from coverage under the Policy pu rsuant to 2 (g) of the Policy. (Ex. C at 2

(g))-

THE AGENC Y AGR EEMENT

20 . Section 2.1(c) of the Agency A greement provides:

(Ex. A at 2.1(c)).

21 . Section 7.1 of the Agency A greement provides:

7.1 At U tiuTM white lbs AgrwmMii la ia effect, Agent, it its txpensos, will flifllnwta with aninsurance wurier sttilthaioty to Hertz, Coirptthcoslvo General pliability Tnstirtaw, inctadinj;contractu*), jwmoruU tnjury, corrinlMed opmilont and Pkft l *& now i\i htrtalto c ou*tihned, and rfuir respectiveomployotB, *JJ oddrtiwul iaiuttdi for liability for bodily injury iaslddltig dwih and properlydimagf. Said losifrftocd will bo prbnwy w>d not exco**, wlilt >: nbln&d efoglc limit of juot tenthan One Miflfon Gfl,000,ODO) Dollars &r bodily Injury, inaludtrifi dabtb. and property ODiriDge inanyouaoceurr*Aee.

(Ex. A at 7.1)

8/12/2019 HERTZ CORPORATION, THE et al v. VANVA, INC. DBA CUBS PARK SERVICE et al complaint

6/8

Case: l:14-cv-01525 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/04/14 Page 6 of 8 PagelD #:6

THE ACE POLICY

22. The Policy excludes coverage for autos as follows:

2. E xclusionsThis insurance does not apply to:

g. Aircraft Auto Or W atercraftBodily injury or property damage arising out of the

ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of anyaircraft, auto or watercraft owned or operated by or rented orloaned to any insured. Use includes operation and loading orunloading . This exclusion applies even if the claims against any

insured allege negligence or other wrongdoing in the supervision,hiring, employment, training or monitoring of others by thatinsured, if the occurrence which caused the bodily injury orproperty dam age involved the ownership, maintenance, use or

entrustment to others of any aircraft, auto or watercraft that isowned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured.

(Ex. C at2 (g) ) .

23 . Au to is defined in the Policy as follows:

2. Auto means:a. A land motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer designed for travelon public roads, including any attached machinery or equipment;orb. Any other land vehicle that is subject to a compulsory orfinancial responsibility law or other motor vehicle insurance lawin the state where it is licensed or principally garaged.

(Ex. C at Section V (2)).

24 . The vehicle operated by HAR RIS at the time of the Claim was a land motor

vehicle that was subject to the financial responsibility laws of Illinois.

8/12/2019 HERTZ CORPORATION, THE et al v. VANVA, INC. DBA CUBS PARK SERVICE et al complaint

7/8

Case: l:14-cv-01525 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/04/14 Page 7 of 8 PagelD #:7

CLAIM

25. VANVA claims that it is entitled to a defense and indemnification for the Claim

under the Policy that it procured from HERTZ pursuant to 7.1 of the Agency Agreement.

26. HERT Z and ACE deny that VAN VA is entitled to a defense and

indemnification for the Claim under the Policy procured pursuant to 7.1 of the Agency

Agreement because the Claim is excluded from coverage under 2 (g) of the Policy. (Ex. C at 2

(g))-

27. The issue of whether the Policy obtained in compliance with 7.1 of the Agency

Agreement provides coverage to VANV A for the Claim is a real and justiciable controversyamong the parties with respect to their rights and obligations under the Agency Agreement and

the Policy.

WH EREF ORE , HERTZ and ACE respectfully requests that this Court find and declare

as follows:

a. that the Policy obtained in compliance with 7.1 of the Agency Agreement

excludes coverage for autos operated by VA NVA and its employee, HAR RIS

pursuant to 2 (g) of the Policy;

b. that the Policy obtained in compliance with 7.1 of the Agency A greement does

not provide insurance coverage for VA NVA or HAR RIS for the Claim;

c. that the liability protection available to VAN VA and HAR RIS for the Claim

under the Agency Agreement is limited to that liability coverage pursuant to

2.1(c) of the Agency Agreement;

8/12/2019 HERTZ CORPORATION, THE et al v. VANVA, INC. DBA CUBS PARK SERVICE et al complaint

8/8