BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY VS ULTIMATE ONLINE INSTALLATIONS INC. Complaint

8/3/2019 BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY VS ULTIMATE ONLINE INSTALLATIONS INC. Complaint

1/8

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

Q O R I G I N A L 0 fcCD BE^05 ?nTimothy Carl Aires, Esq. (138169)AIRES LAW FIRM180 Newport Center Drive, Suite 260Newport Beach, California 92660(949)718-2020(949) 718-2021 FAXAttorneys for Plaintiff,BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY

SID

D EC 0 5 2 0 1 1SUPERIORCOURTOFjCALIFORNIACOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

SUPERIOR COURT (UNLIMITED) OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE COURTHOUSE

RICBANKERS STANDARD INSURANCECOMPANY,

Plaintiff,

ULTIMATE ONLINE INSTALLATIONSINC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,Defendants.

Case No. 1 1 1 9 3 1 1COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OFCONTRACT($27,506.00 DEMANDED)[C.C.P. 425.10]

Plaintiff Bankers Standard Insurance Company, by and through its undersigned attorneys,hereby alleges against Defendants, and each of them , as follows:

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff Bankers Standard Insurance Company is now, and at all times relevant heretowas, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania.// /// /

COMPLAINT


2/8

1 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant Ultimate2 Online Installations Inc. is now, andfct all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized under3 the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Riverside, State of California4 and within this judicial district..56 3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein7 as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious nam es.8 Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of said Defendants when9 the same is ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each of

10 these fictitiously-named Defendants is jointly responsible in some manner for the transactions and11 /or occurrences herein alleged, and that the Plaintiffs injuries as alleged were proximately caused12 by such Defendants.1314 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all times herein15 mentioned each of the Defendants w as the agent of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing16 the things hereinafter alleged, was acting in the course and scope of such agency with the permission17 and consent of its co-Defendants,1819 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, at all times relevant20 hereto, a unity of interest has existed between Defendants such that any separateness between the21 Defendants has ceased and that it would sanction a fraud or promote an injustice if the separateness22 of the Defendants were recognized. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that,23 at all times relevant hereto, that the entity Defendants have been used by the individual Defendants24 as subterfuges for illegal, fraudulent and/or otherwise wrongful transactions. Plaintiff is informed25 and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendants are successors in interest to a party liable to26 Plaintiff. As a result, whether Defendants are the alter egos of one another or successors in interest,27 Defendants are responsible for the debts, obligations and duties of oneanother. Plaintiff is informed28 and believes and based thereon alleges that the damage claim of Plaintiff is separate and distinct

COMPLAINT


3/8

o o1 from any damage claim of the entirety of the class of the entity Defendants' creditors in that Plaintiff2 was the specific and particularized target of Defendants' illega l, fraudulent and/or otherwise3 wrongful conduct.45 6. This action is not subject to Civil Code 1812.10 or Civil Code 2984.4. The proper6 county for the trial of this action is the County of Riverside in that the Defendants, and each of them,7 contracted to perform the obligation sued upon and/or have their principal place of business in the8 County of Riverside and within this judicial district.9

10 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION11 (Breach of Contract Against All Defendants)1213 7. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 6, inclusive, of this14 Complaint as if set forth in full in this paragraph.1516 8. On or about December29,2008, Plaintiff upon the request of Defendants for W orkers17 Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance coverage, provided Defendants with an Insurance18 Policy No. C45720573 for the period of 12/29/2008 through 12/29/2009, in writing, which was19 subject to an audit and recomputation of its premium (the "Policy"). Plaintiff is authorized under20 the Policy to examine and audit all records that relate to the Policy during the policy period. The21 Policy provides that the final premium w ill be determined by using the actual premium basis and the22 proper classifications and rates as determined by an audit. The Policy further obligated Defendants23 to pay the difference between the estimated and actual premiums after the audit and final premium24 determined by Plaintiff. In this regard, the Policy, in part, provides:2526 PART FIVE - PREMIUM [fl B. Classifications ffl] Item 4 of the27 information page shows the rate and premium basis for certain28 business or work classifications. These classifications were assigned

COMPLAINT


4/8

o1 based on an estimate of the exposures you would have during the2 policy period. If your actual exposures are not properly described by3 those classifications, we will assign proper classifications, rates and4 premium basis by endorsement to this policy. fl[] C. Remuneration5 [


5/8

o1 to this policy. These records include ledgers, journals, registers,2 vouchers, contracts, tax rep6rts, payroll and disbursement records,3 and programs for storing and retrieving data. We may conduct the4 audits during regular business hours during the policy period and5 within three years after the policy period ends . Information6 developed by audit will be used to determine final premium.7 Insurance rate service organizations have the same rights we have8 under this provision.9

10 9. An audit was subsequently performed on the effective policy period for the Policy.11 The audit found the prem ium basis estimate provided by the Defendants to be inaccurate and found12 the actual audited total premium plus tax for the effective policy period for the Policy to be short.1314 10. Plaintiff has performed all conditions, covenants and promises required of it on its15 part in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Policy, except those which are excused by16 Defendants' breach.1718 11. Subsequent to the audit, Defendants refused to m ake any further payments toward the19 policy premium as audited for the Policy. Thus, within the past four years, Defendants have20 breached the terms of the Policy by failing and refusing to satisfy the am ount outstanding on the21 Policy of $27,506.00, which became fixed or readily ascertainable on March 8,2011.2223 12. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' breach of the Policy, Plaintiff has24 been damaged in the amount of $27,506.00, together with prejudgment interest of $7.53 per day from25 March 8,2011 using the legal rate of 10% per annum.26 ///27 ///28 ///

COMPLAINT


6/8

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, asfollows:

1. For the sum of $27,506.00, together with prejudgment interest of $7.53 per day fromMarch 8, 2011 using the legal rate of 10% per annum;

2. For costs of suit, including attorney's fees, if available; and

3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: December 3, 2011 AIRES LAW FIRM

nrmthy Carl Aires, Esq.Attorne>rjor Plaintiff,BANKERS"5TANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY

COMPLAINT


7/8

_ATTORNEV OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name,"Timothy Carl Aires, Esq.Timothy Carl Aires, Esq.AIRES LAW FIRM180 Newport Center Drive,Newport Beach, CA 92660TELEPHONE NO.: 9 4 9 / 7 1 8 - 2 0 2 0

ATTORNEY FOR fflam gl: P L A I N T I F F

t U c: A Lir number, and address):( 1 3 8 1 6 9 )(138169)S u i t e 260

FAXNO.: 9'49/718-2021

&'"I ?( 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF R I V E R S I D ESTREET ADDRESS: 4 0 5 0 M A I N S T R E E TMAILING ADDRESS: 4 0 5 0 M A I N S T R E E TCITY AND ZIP CODE: R I V E R S I D E , CA 9 2 5 0 1BRANCH NAME: RIVERSIDE COURTHOUSECASE NAME: BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY v .ULTIMATE ONLINE INSTALLATIONS INC.; and DOES 1 t h r o

FO R COURT U S E O N L Y CM-0

3IVIL CASE COVER SHEETl~Xl Unlimited Limited{Amount (Amountdemanded demanded isexceeds $25,000) $25.000 or less)Complex Case Designation

I I Counter I 1 JoinderFiled with first appearance by defendant(Cal. R ules of C ourt, rule 3.402)

B U M B E R :

JUDGE:DEPT:

Items 1-6below must be completed (see instructiom1 . C heck one box below for the case type that best describes this case:

Auto TortI Auto (22)I Uninsured motorist (46)

Other P I/PD/WD (Personal Injury/PropertyDamage/Wrongful Death) TortI"" I Asbestos (04)I I Product liability (24)I | Medical malpractice (45)| I Other PI/PD/WD (23)Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) TortI I Business tort/unfairbusiness practice (07)I I Civil rights (08 )I | Defamation (13)I " I Fraud (16)I I Intellectual property (19 )| | Professional negligence (2 5)| ] Other non-PI/PD/WD tort (35)Employment\__\ Wrongful termination (36)

Other employment (15)

Contract| _ _ | Breach of contract/warranty (06)P H Rule 3.740 collections (09)l~X'l Other collections (09)P~~l Insurance coverage (18)I ! Other contract (3 7)Real Propertyf l Eminent domain/Inversecondemnation (14)I | Wrongful eviction (33)I I Other real property (26)Unlawful DetainerI I Commercial (31)I ~ l Residential (32) Drugs (38)Judicial Review

Asset forfeiture (05)| | Petition re: arbitration aw ard (11)I I Writ ofmandate (02)I I Other judicialreview(39)

on page 2).Provisionally Complex Civil Litig ation(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)

I Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)I I Construction defect (1 0)I I Mass tort (40)

I Securities litigation (28)I | Environmental/Toxic tort (30)| Insurance coverage claims arising from tabove listed provisionally complex case

types (41)Enforcement of JudgmentI I Enforcement of judgment (20)Miscellaneous Civil Complaint1 1 RICO (27)1 1 Other complaint (not specified above) (Miscellaneous Civil Petition

I Partnership and corporate governance (2I I Other petition (not specified above) (43)

2. Thiscase I I is LXj is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark thefactors requiring exceptional judicial management:a. I I Large number of separately represented parties d. I I Large number of witnessesb. 1 I Extensive motion pr actice raising difficult or novel e. [~ 1 Coordination with related actions pending in one or m ore coissues that will be ime-consuming o resolve in other counties, states, orcountries, or in a federal courtc. i I Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. 1 I Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision3. R emedies sought (check a ll that apply): a. 1~"X~1 monetary b. I 1 nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. 1 I p4. Number of causes of action (specify): ONE5. This case I I is I X I is not a class action suit.6. If there are any known related cas es, file and serve a notice of related case. (You m a y use form CM-Q1j\D a t e : 1 2 / 3 / 2 0 1 1T i m o t h y C a r l A i r e s , Esq. ( 1 3 8 1 6 9 )(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR A T T O R N E Y ^ C R P A R T Y )

NOTICEPlaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action orproceeding (except small claims cases or cases filedunder the Probate C ode, Family Code, or W elfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. R ules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may rein sanctions.File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.If this case is complex under r ule 3.400 et seq. of the California R ules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on aother parties to the action or proceeding.U nless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only.Put* 1Form Adopted for Mandatory UnJudicial Council of CaliforniaCM-010 [Rev. July 1,2007]C I V I L C A S E C O V E R S H E E T L e e a l c< * Rui* of court, rules 2 30, 3 220,3.400-3.403.3w _ w w i . w w w I _ I A u i - * . S o m S a r i S " Cal Slantia,tii < * Ju6 ic ia l Administration, * fapfiis


8/8

oSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE4050 Main StreetRiverside, CA 92501www.riverside.courts.ca.gov

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO DEPARTMENT FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PURPOSESAND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE {CRC 3.722)BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY VS ULTIMATE ONL

CASE NO. RIC 1119311

This case is assigned to the Honorable Judge Ronald L Taylorin Department 06 for case management purposes.The Case Management Conference is scheduled for 06/05/12at 8:30 in Department 06.Case is Assigned to Department 02 for Law and Motion Purposes

The plaintiff/cross-complainant shall serve a copy of this notice onall defendants/cross-defendants who are named or added to thecomplaint and file proof of service.Any disqualification pursuant to CCP Section 170.6(2) shall befiled in accordance with that section.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILINGI certify that I am currently employed by the Superior Court ofCalifornia, County of Riverside, and that I am not a party to thisaction or proceeding. In my capacity, I am familiar with the practicesand procedures used in connection with the mailing of correspondence.Such correspondence is deposited in the outgoing mail of the SuperiorCourt. Outgoing mail is delivered to and mailed by the United StatesPostal Service, postage prepaid, the same day in the ordinary courseof business. I certify that I served a copy of the foregoingnotice on this date, by depositing said copy as stated above.Dated: 12/07/11 Court Executive Officer/Clerk

By:

ac: cmc; cmcb; cmch,- cmct; cmcccmccb;cmcch;cmcct
http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/

Documents

BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY VS ULTIMATE ONLINE INSTALLATIONS INC. Complaint