Henry A. Julicher - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         
          petitioner in May of 1995, Mr. Stewart informed petitioner that             
          Atlas was denying coverage.  This letter (denial letter) alleges,           
          as the primary reason for denying coverage, that Julicher Sports            
          or its representatives had misrepresented or concealed material             
          facts concerning the loss.  The denial letter further alleges               
          that, among other things, Julicher Sports overvalued, and                   
          overstated the quantity of, the damaged property, misrepresented            
          the obsolescence of damaged property, and misrepresented the                
          condition of the building prior to the collapse.  In addition to            
          misrepresentation, the denial letter alleges other grounds for              
          denying coverage, including certain exclusions in the policy and            
          the policy’s coinsurance provision.                                         
               Following the denial letter, on or about July 24, 1995,                
          petitioner and Julicher Sports initiated a lawsuit against Atlas            
          in Federal District Court.  The complaint filed in the lawsuit              
          asserts that the value of plaintiffs’ loss due to the roof                  
          collapse was $138,4606 and claims damages of $137,460 (the                  
          asserted value of the loss minus $1,000 deductible).                        
               Atlas, through Mr. Stewart, responded by filing an answer to           
          the complaint, a counterclaim against petitioner and Julicher               
          Sports, and joinder complaints against unrelated third parties.             


               6 Although the complaint does not describe how this amount             
          was determined, we note that it is the same as in the sworn proof           
          of loss; i.e., the sum of the second contents claim of $70,095              
          and the original claim for damage to the building of $68,365.               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011