Opinion ID: 764976
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: American Casualty's complaint

Text: 48 Zweig contends that American Casualty was not entitled to summary judgment on this issue because the complaint did not allege that he was not an additional insured. The complaint stated: 49 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the remaining Defendants . . . [including Zweig] contend or otherwise allege that the claims made against them are covered under the terms of the subject liability insurance policy and that said Defendants are entitled to indemnification, defense and/or compensation for any all [sic] loss which may be sustained as a result of the litigation filed against them. 50 18. Plaintiff contends that it has no duty to defend or indemnify any defendant herein in reference to any injury suffered by ANTHONY FORCIER or LISA MACHADO during the October 2, 1992 bungee jump based on the same sporting event exclusion. 51 19. Plaintiff desires the judicial declaration of its rights and duties under the policy and the declaration that the policy does not afford coverage to Defendants for bodily injury and that Plaintiff has no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants in connection with any related claim. 52 The complaint thus identified the issue as whether American Casualty had a duty to defend or indemnify Zweig, among others, although it states that the claims should fail under the sporting event exclusion rather than specifically referring to the additional insured issue which applies to Zweig. Zweig was on notice, however, that American Casualty denied coverage or a duty to defend, and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief  is required. Further, in its answer to his counterclaim, American Casualty raised as an affirmative defense that Zweig fails to qualify as an 'insured' within the meaning of any policy allegedly issued by American Casualty. [Id. at 79] The complaint's allegations, as clarified by the answer to the counterclaim, were adequate.