USA Herald – This is the case of Ingram Micro Inc. v. Great American Insurance Co. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Ingram Micro is an American distributor of information technology products and services. Ingram has its headquarters in Irvine, California, and does business around the world.
Great American Insurance Company (GAIC) is part of an American insurance conglomerate, with its headquarters in Cincinnati, OH. GAIC is a subsidiary of its parent organization, the American Financial Group.
On Tuesday, Ingram Micro filed a lawsuit against its insurer accusing it of intentionally delaying a determination on whether it will provide coverage under a crime policy clause for a theft plot perpetrated by its employees. According to the complaint, Ingram Micro says that the insurer’s delay has caused them harm resulting in damages.
In addition, Ingram Micro is accusing the insurer of bad faith, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violating California’s Unfair Competition Law.
Ingram Micro Inc. is represented by Joseph M. Preis and Benjamin G. Reynolds of Godes & Preis, LLP. In their complaint, the tech giant’s attorneys are arguing that the insurer’s delay has forced it to incur thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees and costs in responding to duplicative requests, which it says the insurer has “misleadingly used to avoid its coverage obligations.”
The complaint also states that “Although GAIC has now indicated it does not believe Ingram Micro is entitled to any coverage under the policy, GAIC has still not provided a coverage determination.”
In a review of the complaint, it appears that the coverage dispute stems from a multifarious theft scheme that involved several employees at an Ingram Micro facility located in Millington, Tennessee.
Ingram Micro says that it discovered the theft scheme in March 2021, and in October 2021, it submitted a claim to GAIC along with a lengthy explanation of the claim.
It is not entirely clear from the complaint why the company took nearly seven months until they submitted a claim.
The company says that GAIC unnecessarily waited more than 150 days to respond to their claim, and when they did, the company says the insurer simply responded with more and more requests for information and documents, which the company said had previously been provided.
Ingram Micro wants the court to declare that the policy requires GAIC to provide coverage for its theft claim.