Perry J. Schneider, Esq.

ChrIstopher L. Decker, Esq.

MILODRAGOVICH. DALE,
STEINBRENNER & NYGREN, P.C.
620 High Park Way
P.O. Box 4947
Missoula, Montana 59806-4947.
Telephone: (406) 728-1455
Fax No: (406) 549-7077

IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TIIE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DMSION
HlLLERICH & BRADSBY CO.,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
Cause No.Q\I- I \ 15 -11 DWM
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF
REMOVAL
Defendant, ACE American Insurance Company ("Defendant"), pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1441, gives notice ofremoval with respect to Case No. BDV 2011
909 pending in the Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis & Clark County,
,
and states that removal to the Federal Court is proper for the following reasons:
1. On or about November 15,2011, an Amended Complaint was filed
by Plaintiff against Defendant in the Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis
and Clark County, Cause No. BDV 2011-909.
1
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 1 of 3
2. On November 15,2011, Defendant, through the Montana Insurance
Commissioner, received a copy ofthe Summons and Amended Complaint in the
above action. Copies of the Amended.Summons and Amended Complaint are
attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. Prior to that date, Defendant has not
received, by service or otherwise, a copy of the summons and complaint filed in
the state court action.
3. Other than the documents attached as Exhibits A and B, Defendant
has not been served with any other pleadings, papers or orders in this action, and
fewer than thirty days have elapsed since the initial pleading was received.
4. No other proceedings have been had in this action.
5. Defendant seeks removal ofthis action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
144 I (b). This is a civil action over which this Court has original jurisdiction,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. It is a dispute between citizens of different states
and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
7. Plaintiff was at the time ofthe commencement of this action, and is
now, a Kentucky corporation, being formed in the state of Kentucky, and having
its principal place of business in Louisville, Kentucky. Defendant was at the time
of the commencement ofthis action, and is now, aPermsylvania corporation,
being formed in the state ofPennsylvania, and having its principal places of
business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As a result, for purposes of28 U.S.C.
1332( a), there is complete diversity ofcitizenship between the parties. See 28
U.S.c. 1332(cXl).
8. . Plaintiff's Complaint asserts three causes ofaction: Breach of
Contract, Declaratory Judgment, and Violations of Mont. Code Ann. 33-18-201.
2
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 2 of 3
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the provisions of an insurance policy it
issued Plaintiff and seeks, as damages, certain attorney fees and costs Plaintiff
incurred in an underlying matter, including fees and costs for appealing the verdict
in that case. Plaintiff seeks other contract damages, and compensatory and
punitive damages under Montana's unfair claims settlement practices statutes.
Defendant believes therefore, and avers, that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000 based on the claims and the damages Plaintiff seeks.
9. This Notice of Removal is filed timely with this Court pursuant to 28
U.S.c. 1446(b), because thirty days have not expired since this action became
removable to this Court.
10. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d), written notice of the filing of this
Notice of Removal will be given to counsel for Plainti:r:t: and a copy ofthe Notice
ofRemoval will be filed with the Clerk of the Montana First Judicial District
Court, Lewis and Clark County.
WHEREFORE, Defendantprays that the United States District Court for
the District ofMontana, Helena Division, accept this Notice ofRemoval and
assume jurisdiction ofthis cause and that it issue such further orders and processes
as may be necessary to bring before it all parties necessary for the trial hereof.
DATED this 14th day of December, 2011.
.",S;chnTe""id,.,e""r____
Perry J. Schneider
MILODRAGOVICH, DALE,
STEINBRENNER & NYGREN, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
3
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 3 of 3
Kyle Anne Gray
Jason S. Ritchie
HOLLAND & HART LLP
401 North 31st Street, Suite 1500
P.O. Box 639
Billings, Montana 59103-0639
Telephone: (406) 252-2166
Fax: (406) 252-1669
ATTORNEYS PLAINTIFF
MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY, MONTANA
Hillerich & Bradsby Co., ) No. BDV 2011-909
)
Plaintiff, ) Judge Jcffrey M. Sherlock
)
v. )
) AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
ACE American Insurance Company,
)
)
DEMAND FOR JURy TRIAL
Defendant. )
Plaintiff, by and through its counsel of record, Holland & Hart LLP, for its Amended
Complaint against Defendant, alleges and states as follows:
PARTIES
1. Hillerich & Bradsby Co. (H&B") is a corporation that manufactures, inter alia,
baseball bats under the trademark of Louisville SlUgger ..
2. ACE American lnsurance Company is a corporation engaged in the
business of insurance in, among other places, the State of Montana.

NO\l 2 S lOll
ACe. INCmJnNG LEGAL
EXHIBIT B
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 1 of 14
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Jurisdiction for this action is proper with this Court because the insured accident
in issue occurred in Montana, because judgment was awarded against H&B and satisfied in
Montana, and because Montana is the place ofperformance of the subject insurance policy.
______. : : : ! 4 ~ . Yenuefor thisaction is proper with this Collrt under 25-2-122(2), MeA,
because the insured accident in issue occurred in Lewis & Clark County, Montana, because the
subject insurance policy was partially performed in Lewis & Clark County, and because
judgment was obtained against H&B in Lewis & Clark County.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS TO ALL COUNTS
The Patch Case.
5. In July 2003, Brandon Patch was ii!jnred in an American Legion baseball game in
Helena, Montana, and later died from his injuries.
6. Brandon Patch's Estate, and his mother, Debbie Patch, as personal representative,
brought suit against H&B in Cause No. ADV 2006-397 (later transferred to CDV 2006-397).
7. In order to defend against the claims in the Patch suit, H&B hired counsel in
Montana. Through discovery, motion practiee and pretrial preparation, H&B incurred and paid
attorney fees and costs in Montafl"a related to its defense against the claims in the Patch case, in
an amount that by the date of trial in October 2009 exceeded .$350,000.
8. The claims ofthe Patch plaintiffs were tried before ajury in this Court in October,
2009. The Patch plaintiffs argued that one ofH&B's products, a metal baseball bat, was a
defectively designed product, or alternatively that H&B did not properly warn the Patch
plaintiffs about the product.
2
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 2 of 14
9. On October 28, 2009, a verdict for $850,000 was rendered for the Patch plaintiffs
and against H&B in Cause No. CDV 2006-397 on the Patch plaintiffs' products liability failure
to warn claim. The Pa:tchjury also found H&B's bat product was not defectively designed.
10. Judgment for $850,000 plus post-judgment interest was entered on November 9,
11. While pleased that its product had not been found to have been defectively
designed, H&B decided it was an important to its business interests to seek reversal of the failure
to warn verdict, inter alia, to protect the reputation of its products, and also because the verdict
. left lUlclear what warning the plaintiffs or jury believed the product should carry, or how such a
warning could or should be conveyed to II non-user bystander, tha,t is, to a pitcher who never
touched or saw the bat, and was always at least 60 feet away from the product and its user, the
batter on the other team.
12. At all times before and after the verdict was entered, H&B believed (and
continues to believe) there were solid filctualand legal reasons why the failure to warn verdict
was not supported by the evidence and should, and would, be reversed with either judgment as a
matter of law entered for H&B, or alternatively, a newtrial ordered.
13. In November 2009, H&B filed timely post-trial motions in the district court for
judgment as a matter oflaw, or for a new trial.
14. When its post-trial motions were subsequently denied, H&B then timely appealed
the verdict to the Montana Supreme Court, agam believing it had strong legal and factual
grounds upon which it should be granted judgment as a matter of law, or be granted a new trial,
including, inter alia, the failure ofthe Patch plain1:ifIS to prove, under controlling Montana
precedent ("the Riley case"), that the lack of a warning the decedent would never have seen
3
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 3 of 14
caused his fatal injuries, and also the fact that no cause of action existed under Montana law for
products liability failure to warn a bystander.
15. On July 21, 2011, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the verdict against H&B,
.inter alia, by distinguishing that Court's earlier decision in Riley v. American Honda Motor
Company, 259 Mont. 128, 856 P.2d adopting a decedent's exception to the Riley
case that had been proffered by the dissent (but not adopted by the majority) in the Riley
decision. The Court also extended the claim of products liability failure to warn to non-user
bystanders.
16. By refusing to overturn the verdict and issuing the opinion it did, the Montana
Supreme Court's "decision put [it] in a tiny minority of states that recognize some kind of
bystander failure to warn liability, which most agree is unworkable and contrary to the reality of
modem commerce." See "Case Study: Patch v. Hillerich & Bradsby - Law 360.com (Aug. 15,
2011).
R&D's Insurance Policy and Dispute with ACE.
17. H&B is insured for the Patch case under a policy it purchased from ACE, issued
by ACE as Policy No. Gl8381916 (hereafter, "the Policy"). A copy of the Policy is attached
hereto as Exhibit A. H&B paid the requisite policy premium.
18. Asset forth in the Policy's "SelfInsured Retention with ALAE Limits
Endorsements," (hereafter, "ALAE Endorsement"), R&B and ACE contracted for R&B to be
subject to a $350,000 ALAE Self Insured Retention (hereafter, "ALAE SIR") limit of$350,000,
and a separate liability Self-Insured Retention (hereafter, Liability SIR) of $250,000.
4
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 4 of 14
19. "ALAE," which is an abbreviation for "Allocated Loss Adjustment Expenses," is
a term that includes such expenses and costs ofa lawsuit as attorney fees incurred for defense
and appeal, and interest on judgments pending appeaL
20. The ALAE Endorsement contains the following language: "When the insured's
_----c__ is reasonably expected to exceed the 'Selflnsured Retention' stated in the Dec""l=ar"'B.t!::!o"'n"",_____
we may request the insured to tender the remaining limits ofthe 'Self-Insured Retention' in order
to complete the settlement of such claim or 'suit.' The insured will not unreasonably withhold
its consent to our request to tender remaining limits ofthe 'SelfInsured Retention.'" This
language means that the Policy is what is commonly referred to as a "consent policy," that the
otherwise generai right of an insurer to settle a suit over the objection ofits insured is thus
limited by the policy Janguage.
21. ACE originally accepted its duty to defend H&B in the Patch case under the
Policy, but did not become obligated to pay anything forH&B's preparation ofits defense until
shortly before the October 2009 trial date when H&B's funded ALAE exhausted its ALAE SIR
22. Although ACE had fully supported trial of the Patch claims, once the ALAE SIR
was exhausted and ACE became liable to pay for H&B's attorney fees and other costs oftcial
and any appeal, ACE began to push H&B to try and settle the Patch case shortly before trial was
to begin in October 2009. Throughout this dispute, despite H&B's requests, ACE never
provided an analysis of what it believed H&B overlooked in preparing its defense of the Patch
case, or what compelling evidence plaintiffs offered that H&B did not objectively assess, or that
H&B's assessment was unreasonable.
23. After the verdict was entered against H&B, bya series of e-mails and telephone
calls, ACE insiSted that H&B must now tender its $250,000 SIR to ACE so it could settle the .
5
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 5 of 14
case for the amount ofthe verdict. In those discussions, ACE, acting through its Claim Manager
David C. Zielinski, informed H&B that the Policy was not a "consent policy," and that ACE
could settle the claim at any time and then demand that H&B pay its $250,000 SIR to ACE.
24. H&B disagreed with ACE's interpretation of the policy language, which it
belicvil<!, and continues to believe, is a "consent policy," meanillgACE had t"'o,..,use"""'-'.it""s'--_____
SIR without H&B's consent, as long as H&B was not "unreasonably withholding" that consent.
At all times before the decision affirming the verdict waS issued by the Montana Supreme Court,
H&B believed (and continues to believe) it was not unreasonable for H&B to withhold its
consent for ACE to use H&B's Liability SIR monies to settle the Patch case.
2S. Because, inter alia, of its strong business interests in reversing or otherwise
resolving the many questions left open by the verdict (as discussed in paragraph 9), because of
its belief that the Riley decision entitled it to reversal (as discussed in paragraph 11, above), and
because it believed that the Montana Supreme Court would not adopt the rule of the tiny
minority ofcourts that recognize a cause of action for products liability failure to warn a
bystander (as discussed in paragraph 12, above), H&B believed it reasonable to withhold its
consent for ACE to use H&B's SIR to settle the case. H&B informed ACE of that decision by
letter on November 13, 2009.
26. . By Jetter dated November 17, 2009, ACE responded to H&B's November 13,
2009 letter, and informed H&B, inter alia, as follows:
"The express terms ofthe policy do not afford H&B the right to withhold
consent to settlement under the circumstances presented in this case."
"ACE is not willing to re-try this case."
ACE has the 'right and opportunity to assume from the insured the
defense and control of any claim of 'suit' including any appeal,' [but]
ACE does not opt to assume such control ofthis matter."
6
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 6 of 14
"ACE recommends settlement in the amount of $850,000," which
plaintiffs ''have expressed their willingness" to accept.
If H&B does not tender its SIR and settle the case (before decision on the
post-trial motions and any appeal) for $850,000 using its SIR and
$600,000 from ACE, then "ACE's obligations under the policy for this
claim will be limited as follows: (1) payment of$600,000, not
withstanding the potential recovery ofa higher amOlJllt should plaimiffs
prevail in a subsequent proceeding, (2) cessation ofany obligation to pay
any ALAE following November 17,2009, (3) limitation on any interest
obligation to that portion ofACE's payment under the policy and (4) no
obligation to pursue or pay for any appeal."
"ACE also reseI:Ves its rights to pay the entire amount of the judgment and
seek recovery ofthe SIR from H&B. The actual course ofaction pursued
by ACE shall be at ACE's sole discretion.
27. Despite ACE's threats, H&B decided to proCeed with its post-trial motion and
ultimately appeal. It incurred ALAE expenses for pursuing the post-trial motion, preparing a
Notice ofAppeal, engaging in required pre-appeal mediation, and in securing a bond and a stay
of the judgment pending appeal, in an amount sufficient to pay the judgment and statutory 10%
annual post-judgment interest. ACE paid a portion ofH&B's appeal bond costs, but not the
entire amount as required by the Policy.
28. ACE refused to pay any further ALAE incurred by H&B after November 17,
2009, and spe\iifically instructed H&B to discontinue tendering such fees and costs to ACE for
. payment, which H&B did. H&B continued to incur and pay ALAE expenses, including paying
fees to its counsel for post-trial practice, appeal and oral argument in the Montana Supreme
Court.
29. Following the decision by the Montana Supreme Court (court of last resort)
affirming the verdict, H&B decided it was now reasonable to use its SIR to effectuate payment
7
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 7 of 14
__
of the judgment and interest, instead of pursuing another option, such as filing a petition for
reconsideration with the Montana Supreme Court.
30. By letter dated July 28, 2011, and other contacts bye-mail and telephone, R&B
approached ACE seeking its agreement to pay the post-judgment interest it owed under the
~ m Policy, but ACE refused. Instead, ACE sent two cheeks to H&B, one for $600,000 (the amount
of the $850,000 verdict minus H&B's Liability SIR) and $4,427 (the amount of post-trial interest
due through November 17, 2009). Despite knowing that R&B believed an open dispute
continued between it and ACE for ALAE not paid by ACE, ACE included the language "final
settlement" on the face of the $600,000 cheek;
31. H&B lined out that phrase and deposited both checks. ACE did not dishonor its
cheek with the crossed-out language, and R&B used those funds, along with its own, to pay a
judgment, interest arid costs on appeal to the Patch plaintiffs in the total amount 0[$1,001,000.
32. Contemporaneously with sending the checks, ACE sent H&B a letter dated
August 5,2011, stating tbilt it continued to stand on the position it took in November 17,2009 in
the letter from Claim Manager Zielinski, rejected the reasons stated by R&B that ACE owed the
post-judgment interest, and informed H&B that ACE owed it no further obligations.
33. The Patch plaintiffs thereafter accepted the tenderedpayment and entered a
satisfaction ofjudgment, bringing the case between them and H&B to a final close.
COUNT I
Breach of Contract
34. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all ofthe allegations set forth in
the above paragraphs.
8
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 8 of 14
35. Under the language ofthe Policy, ACE had no right to unilaterally set a cap on
what it would pay under the ALAE provisions ofthe contract, including an absolute refusal to
pay any ALAE appeal expenses like attorney fees and the continually accruing post-judgment
interest.
36. ACE's actions converted the Policy into a non-consent poli\iY. and ____
the Policy any value to the consent language for which H&B bad paid ACE.
37. By unilaterally reciting ALAE caps where they did not exist, and otherwise
treating the Policy as a non-consent policy, ACE denied H&B its contractual right to reasonably ,
withhold its consent for ACE to use H&B's $250,000 SIR to settle a case H&B had decided to
appeal, but which ACE decided fox its own reasons it preferred to settle. By taking the actions it
did, ACE breached the Policy.
38. ACE's actions also unilaterally rewrote the language ofthe Policy, which clearly
states that the most ALAE H&B would have to incur itself for any occurrence, before ACE
would assume its obligation to pay all further ALAE expenses related to that occurrence, was,
H&B's $350,000 ALAE ,SIR. ACE conceded in its letters and by its actions, that H&B's ALAE
SIR had been exhausted by November 17, 2009. '
39. By its conduct ofissuing the November 17,2009 letter, and continuing to refuse
to pay further ALAE thereafter, and all other conduct related thereto, ACE breaehed its contract
of insurance with H&B.
40. Because of ACE's breaches ofthe Policy, H&B has been required to pay the fees
and costs ineurred for the post-trial argument, bonding-related motions practice, a portion of
bonding costs, pre-appeal mediation, and appeal expenses in the Patch case, and also to pay post
9
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 9 of 14
judgment interest to 'satisfy the judgment after appeal in the Patch case, along with other related
expenses that ACE should have paid as properly incurred ALAE expenses,
41, H&B is entitled to recover such sums, together with the fees and costs of bringing
this case to force ACE to honor its contractual obligations under the Policy.
COUNT II
Declaratory Judgment
42. Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates by reference all ofthe allegations set forth in
the above paragraphs.
43. A dispute exists between R&B and ACE as to H&B's rights under the subject
insurance policy, and H&B is therefure entitled to bring this action for a declaratory judgment
determining its rights under the subject policy pursuant to the UnifolTIl Declaratory Judgments
Act, Title 27, Chapter 8, of the Montana Code Annotated.
COUNT III
Violations of Mont. Code Ann. Section 3318201
44.' Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set furth in
the above paragraphs. '
45. Mont. Code Ann. Section 33-18-201 sets forth certain unfair claim settlement
practices which are prohibited by insurers such as ACE. In particular, it is a violation of this
section, among other things, for an insurer to misrepresent insurance policy provisions relating to
coverages at issue or refuse to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based on
available information.
46. By its conduct, ACE has violated Mont. Code Ann. Section 33-18-201.
10
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 10 of 14
47. Mont. Code Ann. Section 33-18-242 provides an independent cause of action to
insureds who are injured by conduct ofinsurers which violate Mont. Code Ann. Section 33-18
201.
48. H&B is entitled to recover damages from ACE as a result of ACE's violations of
Mont. Code Ann. Section 33-18-201 in the amounts to be nmven at trial
49. ACE's conduct entitles H&B to an award ofpunitive damages in accordance with
Mont. Code Ann. Sections 27-1-220 and 221.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, H&B prays for judgment against ACE as follows:
a. For a declaration that under the Policy ACE was required to continue to
pay H&B's ALAE expenses, and that under the Policy ACE is obligated to pay all post-judgment
interest and bonding costs.
b. Against ACE for breach ofcontract and awarding H&B all damages
suffered by it in an amount to be determined at trial.
c. Against ACE for violations of Mont. Code Ann. Section 33-18-201 and
awarding H&B all damages suffered by it as a result ofACE's violations in an amount to be
determined at trial.
d. Against ACE for punitive damages as provided by Montana law.
e. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed and required by
law.
f. For all attorney's fees and costs, including the attorney fees and costs of
this lawsuit, the post-trial attorney fees and costs ofthe Patch lawsuit, and all other costs and fees
incurred by H&B because ACE has" force[d] [H&B] to assume the burden oflegal action to
11
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 11 of 14
yle Anne Gray
ason S. Ritchie
obtain the full benefit ofthe insurance contract" it has with ACE. Mountain West Farm Bureau
MuJ. Ins. Co. v. Brewer, 2003 MT 98, 136,315 Mont. 231, 69 PJd 652 (Mont. 2003).
g. For all such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper
under the circumstances.
JURyDEMAND
Plaintitfhereby demands trial byjury of all issues properly triable by jury.
Dated this 14th day of November, 2011.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
401 North 31 st Street, Suite 1500
P.O. Box 639
Billings, Montana 59103-0639 .
ATIORNEYS FOR PLAlNTlFF HILLERlCH &
BRADSBYCO.
4716361JDOCX
12
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 12 of 14
, ,,, ..... t
, ' . .
, .
, Kyle Anne Gray
Jason g. Ritchie
HOLLAND &. HART LLP

401 North 31st Suite 1500
P.O. Box 639
, NOV 2 8 ,2011
Billings, Montana 59103-0639
Telephone: (406) 252-2166
Fax; (406) 252-1669

MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
, LEWIS &. CLARK COUN1Y, MONTANA
Hillerich &. Bradshy Co., ) No, BDV2011-909
)
Plaintiff; , ) Judge Jeffrey M. Sherlock
)
v. )
) AMENDED
ACE American Insurance Company,
,) SUMMONS
)
Defendant. )
THE STATE OF MONTANA SENDS GREETINGS
TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT: ACE American Co.
You are hereby summoned to answer the Complaint inthis action which is filed in the
office of the Clerk of this Court, a copy of which is herewith served upon you and to file your
answer and serve a copy thereof upon ,the' plailltifi's attorney within thirty (30) days after the
service ofthis Summons, exclusive of the' day of service; and in case ofyour failure to appear or
answer, will betaken against you by default, for the demanded in the Complaint. '
WITNESS my band and the seal of said Court this -Lf"day ofNovernber, 201 L
NANCY SWEENEY
CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
By. __ ___________________
, Deputy.clerk, ,
EXHIBIT A
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 13 of 14
I I" ...... , ,
...... , ..... :
Jason S. Ritchie
KyleA. Gray
Holland & Hartw
401 North 31st Street
Suite 1500
P.O.Box639
________ ____________ ____________________
.
2
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/11 Page 14 of 14
------ ----------
-------- ------- -----
J544 (Rev, 09111)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil eovl:[ sheet IUld the information conra:iDcdhn-eiD Deitheneploce not supplement the filing and serviee ofpleadings or otberpepers anequiredby law, exoeptas provided
by locollules of court. This form. approved by tbe Judicial Confcrencc ofthe United States in September 1974. ill reqwi'ed for the Wle ofthe ClerkofCourt for the pwpose of mitiating
the civil dockEt sheet. (SEE INS/'RUC'I10lY'S ONNEXl' PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
HILlERICH & BRADSBY CO.,
(b) County ofR.esidc:nce ofFinltListcd Plnint:iJT ".I"effiillOers""'oUJoL-______
(EXCEPT IN u.s. PUINT1FF CASES)
. Aaa"",. 'M }I",.b"'i
P.O. Box 639
Billin s MT 591030639
n. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (PI"... ''''''''''''''''''0.''1
o 1 U,S,Oovemmeat
PJainriff
o 3:
(U.s. GoWll'mflgffI Not CI Pal'ty)
o 2 u.s, Government
ll<fodaut
IX 4 Diymit}'
(hulicate ClfiZBnsltip qfP(Jl'fjas irr IfJlm 111)
13 1to
o 120Marme
o 130 Miller Act
a 140 Negotiable I:astrornmt
a
a 151 MedicmeA.cl
o 152 R,ecmoe:ry of Defaulted
Student Loam

o 153 Recovery of OverpRymcllt
OlVC1CIIll'& BcncfuI
o 160 Slod;holdcn' Suits
o 190 Other Contnu:t
o 195 ContractProdud Liability
C1 196 Flanchist
PERSONAL INJURy
1l0A;,pw,.
315 Allplane Product
[jability
320 Assault, Libel &
.........
330 Folmi Employm'
Liabilily
340 Marine
Marine PIodUCI
Liobilily
Mctorvebic1r
J.S5MolorVcbidc
Prodoot UaIriIity
360 Other Persol!al
lnjmy
3:62Pmooal
PERSONAL INJURY
o Personal Injury
Prodw:t Liability
CJ 367 lIealth r;".J
PbaanocelJtical
Pmoual Injury
Prodo>cl [jabilily
CJ 368 Asbcltos Pmaoal
Injury Product
liobilily
PERSONAL PROPERlY
o 370 Olher Fmud
0371 TmthinLendin&
o 3BO Othc:r PcnIonsI
Property Damag.!
CJ 38; Propeny D"""8'
Product Liability

DEFENDANTS
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(IN U.J. PUDmFF CASES OM.IJ
IN lAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE IRE WCATION OF
nm TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
Attomeys (J/KJ,ot'o7l)
Peny Schneider
Mllodregovlch, Dale, Steinbrenner & Nygren, P.C.
m. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (pI..... ''X''', O"oBaxf",P/al.trJf!
(For Df1'flt'slty Cases
PTF
Citizen ofIbis State 0 1
DEF
0 1
Clnd OlTe Boxfor Dt/wuknl)
PIT DEF
Incmpmated or PriDCipal Place 0 4 0
ofBII:Sintss hi lh:is Slate
4
t'lt 2 rx::2 IncorporatedQlfdPrincipaiPIace
ofBusiness In Another SUlm
o 5 a 5
or SlWjec:t of " a 3 0 3 Foreign Nation o 6 0 6
Fore' Countrv
625 Drug R.elate:d Seizure
ofPropeny 21 USC 881
69000..
hI
no LaborlMgm1. Relations
740 RRilwIYLabor Act
m Fomily ondM.dkai
l.eawkt
790 Other Labor LirigatiOll
o 422 AppClll 28 USC 15B o Fs1sc CWnIS Ad.
o 423 Withdrawal a 400 Stal(' R.cRpportiOllll1.CElt
28USC 151 a 410 AntitnlBt

a
CJ 430B""""""B...m"
450 CDIDIDCfCC
a 460 DcporlRtign
a 470 Rackeceer In1Iuc:nccd aDd
Corrupt Orpnlzatiom
"'I!!!i!isj a 480 Consumer Credit
iii: a 490 CabWSat TV
a 8$0 SacurilieslCommodilieal
Exclw>..
a 890 Otbe!: Starutory Actions
o 891 Agriculmca.J..Act!
o 81jI3 FnvironmeIIIal Matters
a 895 ofInfoanaliDll
hI

CI 220 ForecIosDrt:
o 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
o 240 Torts to Land
o 245 TOll ProductLiobility
o 290 All Other Real Property
441 VotiDg

443 Housing{
Accommodations
445 ADler. wlDisabilitics
791 EmpL .... Inc.
;: Security Act
s.."""
Habeu Co1'PUS:
530Ga1aal
a 135 DeathPe&:IlIlty
a S40 MMdamus & Olher

a 896 Arbitration CJ 899 """""""

Actt'Rc\icw or Appcal. of
o 871 IRS-Third Party
26 usc 7609
Agcacy Dlsioo
o 9.50 COl1S'Iitntiorullityof
StBte StRtutes
"",,1aym<nI
446 Amer, wlDWbiliti.es
0"",
o .550 Civil R.igbIs
Prison Condition
o 560 Ci'Yil Decainee
Candilions of
V. ORIGIN "A"';."""Box o,/y)
o 1 Original 2 from 0 3 Romonded from 0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 0 6 Multidistriol
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened s l' Litigation
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not ciUjllrlslllmontd !ttrtuta Mains d;WU'SIty):
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION f:,:;28;,U::;::.::::S:;:.C::, . .!,;144=:i-1____________________________
Brief deseri.ption ofcause:
Breach of insurence contract bad faith
VIT. REQUESTED IN o CHECK IF TIllS IS A CLASS ACTION . DEMANDS CHECK YES only if demand=d in complaint:
COMPLAINT:
UNDERF.R.C.P.23 75,000.00 JURYDEMANJ): OJ:Yes 0 No
vm. RELATED CASE(S)
(SeB flUh1JcHtw).'
IF ANY ruDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIONATIJRE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
12114/2011 Is/Perry J. Schneider
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT#" AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG.l1JDGE
Case 6:11-cv-00075-DWM Document 1-2 Filed 12/14/11 Page 1 of 1