Case: 5:11-cv-00350-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/17/11 1 of 5.

PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DISTRICT

Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC )

535 Marriott Drive )
Nashville, Tennessee 37214 )
) Case No.:
and )
)
Firestone Polymers, LLC )
535 Marriott Drive )
Nashville, Tennessee 37214, ) Judge
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
Pacific Employers Insurance Company ) JUDGMENT AND BREACH OF
436 Walnut Street ) CONTRACT
Philadelphia, PA 19106 )
)
Defendant. ) Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon
)
)

For their Complaint, Plaintiffs Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC and Firestone

Polymers, LLC, state as follows:

1. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (“BATO”) is a limited liability

company. As such, for diversity purposes, BATO holds the same citizenship as that of its sole

member, Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc., which is a Nevada corporation with its principal

place of business in Tennessee. BATO is a successor-in-interest to rights under insurance

policies originally issued to The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company (“Firestone”).
 Case: 5:11-cv-00350-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/17/11 2 of 5. PageID #: 2

2. Firestone Polymers, LLC (“FP”) is a limited liability company. As such, for

diversity purposes, FP’s citizenship is the same as that of its sole member, Bridgestone

Procurement Holdings USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business

in Delaware. FP is a successor-in-interest to rights under insurance policies originally issued by

the Defendant to Firestone.

3. At all times pertinent hereto, Firestone was an Ohio corporation formed in the

year 1900, which had its principal place of business in Akron, Ohio. Both of the policies

identified in paragraph 9 below were delivered to Firestone at its corporate headquarters in

Akron.

4 Defendant Pacific Employers Insurance Company (“PEIC”) is a Pennsylvania

corporation having its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this controversy under 28 USC 1332(a) in that the

matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is

between citizens of different states.

6. Venue is proper in this district under 28 USC 1391(a)(1), in that PEIC “resides”

in this district within the meaning of 28 USC 1391(c) because it is subject to personal

jurisdiction in this state and district.

COUNT ONE—Declaratory Judgment

7. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 6

above as if rewritten at length.

8. The Plaintiffs are legal successors-in-interest to the defendants named in the

lawsuit entitled Fred Blackwell, et al. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., et al., Case No. 98-1100 on

the docket of the 14th Judicial Court in the Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana,

2
 Case: 5:11-cv-00350-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/17/11 3 of 5. PageID #: 3

(“Blackwell”). The Blackwell Plaintiffs allege that BATO, FP, and/or their predecessors-in-

interest are liable to the Blackwell Plaintiffs for noise-induced hearing loss and other damages,

all as asserted in the Blackwell Plaintiffs’ original and first through thirteenth supplemental and

amending petitions.

9. Between November 1, 1984 and May 1, 1986, PEIC issued the following

Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance Policies (the “WC/EL Policies”) to

Firestone:

Policy Period Policy Number

11/1/84 to 11/1/85 RSC-C23980046

11/1/85 to 5/1/86 RSC-C26183881

10. Copies of the policies that were in effect from 11/1/84 to 11/1/85 and from

11/1/85 to 5/1/86 are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively.

11. Some or all of the claims asserted in the Blackwell suit were arguably or

potentially within the scope of the WC/EL Policies.

12. In August 2005, Plaintiffs notified PEIC of the Blackwell suit and identified (to

the extent then known) the name, policy number, and effective date of all potentially applicable

policies, including among others the WC/EL Policies identified above.

13. Both of the WC/EL Policies issued by PEIC imposed defense obligations on PEIC

that are outside of, and do not exhaust, the policy limits.

14. The WC/EL Policies cover claims asserted by current and former employees for

“bodily injury by accident” or “bodily injury by disease.” To the extent that the noise-induced

hearing loss claims asserted by the Blackwell Plaintiffs constitute “bodily injury by accident,”

one or more of the Blackwell Plaintiffs sustained “bodily injury by accident” that arguably or

3
 Case: 5:11-cv-00350-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/17/11 4 of 5. PageID #: 4

potentially occurred during one or more of the WC/EL Policy periods. To the extent that the

noise-induced hearing loss claims asserted by the Blackwell Plaintiffs constitute “bodily injury

by disease,” one or more of the Blackwell Plaintiffs’ last day of last exposure to the conditions

causing or aggravating such bodily injury by disease was arguably or potentially during one or

more of the WC/EL Policy periods.

15. Plaintiffs have demanded that PEIC honor its defense obligations and have

provided PEIC with the information necessary for it to do so, but PEIC has failed and refused to

provide or fund the Plaintiffs’ defense of the Blackwell claims.

16. Based upon the foregoing, there exists a present, ripe, and justiciable controversy

between the parties concerning PEIC’s duty to defend, or to pay for the defense, of the Plaintiffs

with respect to the Blackwell claims. Plaintiffs therefore seek a declaration under the Federal

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 USC 2201 and 2202, declaring that PEIC did and does owe

defense obligations to the Plaintiffs under the WC/EL Policies for the claims asserted by the

Blackwell Plaintiffs, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT TWO—BREACH OF CONTRACT

17. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 16

above as if rewritten at length.

18. PEIC’s failure to meet its defense obligations under the WC/EL Policies

constitutes a breach of contract for which Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of compensatory

damages in an amount in excess of $75,000 excluding interest and costs. In addition, Plaintiffs

are entitled to an award of attorney fees, interest, and costs from the date of PEIC’s default.

4
 Case: 5:11-cv-00350-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/17/11 5 of 5. PageID #: 5

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

1. As to Count One, a declaratory judgment under 28 USC 2201 and 2202 declaring

that PEIC owed a duty to defend the Plaintiffs under the WC/EL Policies for the claims asserted

by the Blackwell Plaintiffs, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and

equitable;

2. As to Count Two, an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be shown

at trial but in all events in excess of $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs arising out of PEIC’s

breach of its respective contracts of insurance; and

3. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

/s/ John R. Chlysta____________________

David T. Moss (0014968)
David J. Hanna (0023498)
John R. Chlysta (0059313)
Hanna, Campbell & Powell LLP
P. O. Box 5521
3737 Embassy Parkway, Suite 100
Akron, OH 44334
Phone: 330-670-7300
Fax: 330-670-7459
dmoss@hcplaw.net
dhanna@hcplaw.net
jchlysta@hcplaw.net
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC
and Firestone Polymers, LLC

JURY DEMAND

Trial by jury is hereby demanded.

/s/ John R. Chlysta____________________

<<HCP #511901-v1>>