1 to which Plaintiff was entitled. It did not employ proper means to do so, but instead 2 employed wrongful means of interjecting itself, through its HFP division, in the 3 underwriting and claims adjustment processes of its subsidiary (Twin City), and thereby 4 engaged in the business of insurance without first obtaining proper licenses and 5 authorizations to do so in California and other jurisdictions in which Twin City issues 6 Private Choice Encore! D&O policies at Hartford's behest and command. 7
89.
In doing so, Defendant Hartford's misconduct, as described above, was
8 undertaken with the express purpose and design of causing Twin City to breach its
Law Offices of Mark Anchor Albert Los Angeles, California
9 obligations under the Policy it issued to Plaintiffs. Hartford therefore has directly 10 caused and continues to cause Twin City's breach of its Policy obligations to its 11 insureds, and has disrupted and harmed the contractual relationship between insurer and 12 insureds that properly should exist under and by the terms and conditions of the Policy. 13 Given Hartford's control and domination over Twin City with respect to the coverage 14 acceptance/denial process and decision-making, Hartford is the moving or procuring 15 cause of the breach of Plaintiff's insurance contract with Twin City. If Hartford had not 16 so dominated and controlled Twin City's performance of its claim investigation, analysis 17 and approval functions, Twin City would have been able to honor and would not have 18 breached its contractual obligations to Plaintiffs. 19
90.
As a direct and proximate result of Hartford's tortious interference with
20 Twin City's insurance contract with Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue 21 to suffer reasonable, foreseeable and ascertainable damages, including but not limited to 22 defense fees and costs incurred in defense of the Thomason Federal Action and any 23 judgment or settlement of the Thomason Federal Action, as well as related expenses in 24 an amount not yet fully ascertained. 25
91.
The conduct described herein constitutes “oppression, fraud or malice” as
26 those terms are defined in Civil Code § 3294, and Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to 27 28
- 50 Complaint Against Twin City Fire Ins. Co. et al. for Breach of Insurance Contract, Insurance Bad Faith, Etc.