Preview
1 ELLIOTT M. KROLL (SBN 77074)
elliott.kroll@afslaw.com
2 ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
1301 Avenue Of The Americas, Fl. 42
3 New York, NY 10019-6040
Telephone: 212.484.3987
4 Facsimile: 212.484.3990
5 JEFF LEUNG (SBN 310960)
jeff.leung@afslaw.com
6 ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 38th Floor
7 San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415.757.5500
8 Facsimile: 415.757.5501
9 Attorney for Plaintiff
BRIDGER CLAIMS SERVICES, LLC
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
12
13 BRIDGER CLAIMS SERVICES, LLC, a CASE NO.
Delaware corporation,
14 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR:
Plaintiff, (1) DECLARATORY RELIEF
15 v. (2) DECLARATORY RELIEF; AND
(3) DECLARATORY RELIEF
16 KNIGHTBROOK INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation;
17 KNIGHT MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
LLC, a California corporation,
18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
COMES NOW, Plaintiff BRIDGER CLAIMS SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware corporation
23
(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), for causes of action against Defendants KNIGHTBROOK
24
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, and KNIGHT MANAGEMENT
25
COMPANY, LLC, a California corporation (hereinafter collectively “Defendants”), and alleges
26
as follows:
27
//
28
A RE NT FOX S C HIFF LLP
A T T ORNE YS A T L A W
-1-
S A N F RA NC ISC O
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 PARTIES
2 1. Plaintiff is a limited liability company, duly organized and existing under and by
3 virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware.
4 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that Defendant
5 KNIGHTBROOK INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter “KnightBrook”), is a Delaware
6 corporation doing business in the County of Alameda, State of California, and, at all times
7 relevant herein, was/is engaged in the business of property and casualty insurance in the state of
8 California.
9 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that Defendant,
10 KNIGHT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC (hereinafter “KMC”), is a California corporation,
11 doing business in the County of Alameda, State of California, and, at all times relevant herein,
12 was/is an agent of KnightBrook.
13 JURISDICTION
14 4. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395, jurisdiction is proper in the
15 Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, because the contract in question
16 was entered into and required performance in Alameda County.
17 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
18 5. Plaintiff is a company engaged in the management of insurance claims.
19 The Claims Service Agreement.
20 6. On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff and Knight Management Insurance Services,
21 LLC (hereinafter “KMIS”) performed services as an agent for KnightBrook and entered into the
22 Claims Service Agreement (the “CSA”). A true and correct copy of the CSA is attached hereto as
23 Exhibit 1. KMIS contracted with Bridger to handle claims on insurance policies that were issued
24 by KnightBrook.
25 7. The recitals in the CSA disclosed that any of the insurance business underwritten
26 by KnightBrook was transferred by reinsurance to an offshore insurer, Knight Insurance
27 Company, Ltd., based in the Cayman Islands (“Knight Cayman”). As the CSA set forth,
28 “Reinsurer [Knight Cayman] bears 100% of Insurer’s business, credit and/or insurance risk on
A RE NT FOX S C HIFF LLP
A T T ORNE YS A T L A W
-2-
S A N F RA NC ISC O
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 certain lines of insurance business . . .” Thus, KnightBrook retained no “business, credit and/or
2 insurance” interest in claims handled by Plaintiff.
3 8. Section XIV of the CSA provides that
4 should there arise a difference of opinion or interpretation of this Agreement or
any Disputes arising from or relating to the performance or breach of the
5
Agreement (“Dispute”), the matter shall be resolved by a neutral, binding
6 arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), and not by a
court of law.
7
8 9. Furthermore, Section XIV defines “Dispute” to mean “any action, dispute, claim
9 or controversy of any kind arising out of, in connection with or in any way related to the
10 Agreement, Program, contracts, origination, servicing, collection, reporting, or any other aspect
11 whatsoever of the past, present or future relationship or conduct of the Parties.” (Emphasis
12 added.)
13 10. Neither KnightBrook nor KMC are “Parties” to the CSA.
14 The Settlements.
15 11. In an accident that occurred on May 29, 2019, Sandra DeLeon, a driver insured by
16 a policy issued by KnightBrook and reinsured 100% by Knight Cayman, struck cyclist Rene
17 Flores with her car, causing injury. Flores filed suit against DeLeon, and that suit was settled for
18 nearly $9 million (the “DeLeon Settlement”).
19 12. In a different accident that took place in or around the summer of 2019, Oscar
20 Sanchez, a driver insured by a policy issued by KnightBrook and reinsured 100% by Knight
21 Cayman, struck Citlali Bernal Leon with his car while he was backing out of his driveway. That
22 suit was settled for $350,000 (the “Sanchez Settlement,” and together with the DeLeon
23 Settlement, the “Settlements”).
24 13. Insurance companies in the United States are regulated and must file sworn
25 financial statements (quarterly and annually) in accordance with rules promulgated by the
26 National Association of Insurance Commissioners and adopted by all states. Those rules,
27 Statements of Statutory Account Principals (“SSAP”), and state laws require that insurers book
28 losses they sustain. Those financial statements are sworn to under penalty of perjury and,
A RE NT FOX S C HIFF LLP
A T T ORNE YS A T L A W
-3-
S A N F RA NC ISC O
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1033, it is a federal felony to knowingly, with the intent to deceive, make
2 any false material statement in connection with such statutory financial statements for the purpose
3 of influencing insurance regulators.
4 14. KnightBrook did not book as losses in its 2022 Statutory Annual Statement either
5 of the Settlements set forth above.
6 Arbitration Demand.
7 15. On May 5, 2023, together with KMIS, Defendants filed a Demand For Arbitration
8 (hereinafter referred to as the “Demand”) with the American Arbitration Association (hereinafter
9 referred to as “AAA”). The Demand arose from the two accidents above and names as Claimants
10 KnightBrook, KMIS, and KMC. A true and correct copy of the Demand is attached hereto as
11 Exhibit 2. In their Demand, Defendants, which are non-signatories to the CSA, seek amounts
12 from Bridger in the amounts of $8,935,000 and $335,000, relating to the two insurances claims.
13 Ex. 2 ¶¶ 22, 35–36.
14 16. Defendants here—Claimants in the AAA Arbitration—allege in their Demand that
15 Plaintiff failed to properly administer these two separate insurances claims. Claimants assert that
16 as a result of Plaintiff’s conduct, they were forced to settle those claims for a substantially greater
17 amount than would have been paid had Plaintiff handled those claims differently when they were
18 initially made.
19 17. Plaintiff and KMIS are the only named Parties to the CSA.
20 18. KnightBrook and KMC are not Parties to the CSA.
21 19. KMC was not a party to any insurance policy involved in any of the Settlements,
22 did not sustain any loss with respect to either of the Settlements and was solely acting in the
23 capacity of an agent for a disclosed principal, to wit, Defendant KnightBrook.
24 20. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief that KnightBrook and KMC do not have the right
25 to arbitrate any claims against Plaintiff pursuant to the CSA, because those entities are
26 nonsignatories to the contract.
27 21. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory relief that it has no financial obligations to
28 KnightBrook with respect to the two insurances claims for various reasons including but not
A RE NT FOX S C HIFF LLP
A T T ORNE YS A T L A W
-4-
S A N F RA NC ISC O
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 limited to KnightBrook not being the real party-in-interest, KMC did not sustain any damage, and
2 that actions or omissions of the Plaintiff was not the proximate cause of any the losses
3 purportedly sustained by KnightBrook.
4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (Declaratory Relief as against all Defendants)
6 22. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as
7 though set forth herein in full.
8 23. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and the Defendants. Plaintiff
9 contends Defendants cannot require Plaintiff to arbitrate with Defendants claims set forth in their
10 Demand. Defendants contend to the contrary.
11 24. Plaintiff requests a judicial declaration of the respective rights, responsibilities and
12 obligations of Plaintiff to arbitrate in the AAA Arbitration with Defendants with respect to the
13 Demand. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that it has no obligation to arbitrate in
14 the AAA Arbitration with Defendants with respect to the Demand and that Defendants cannot
15 require that Plaintiff arbitrate with Defendants with respect to the Settlements or the Demand.
16 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
17 (Declaratory Relief as against Defendant KnightBrook)
18 25. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 24, inclusive, as
19 though set forth herein in full.
20 26. Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party-in-interest. CCP
21 § 367.
22 27. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and the Defendant KnightBrook.
23 Plaintiff contends Defendant KnightBrook is not the real party-in-interest with respect to the
24 Settlements or the Demand. Defendant KnightBrook contends to the contrary.
25 28. Plaintiff requests a judicial declaration of the respective rights, responsibilities and
26 obligations of Plaintiff with Defendant KnightBrook with respect to the Settlements and the
27 Demand. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that Defendant KnightBrook is not
28 the real party-in-interest, Defendant KnightBrook sustained no loss with respect to the
A RE NT FOX S C HIFF LLP
A T T ORNE YS A T L A W
-5-
S A N F RA NC ISC O
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 Settlements, and Plaintiff has no responsibility, obligation, or liability to KnightBrook with
2 respect to the Settlements or the Demand.
3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (Declaratory Relief as against Defendant Knight Management Company LLC)
5 29. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 28, inclusive, as
6 though set forth herein in full.
7 30. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and the Defendant KMC. Plaintiff
8 contends Defendant KMC was not a party to any insurance policy, paid no portion of any of
9 either of the Settlements, and otherwise did not sustain any loss or damage with respect to the
10 actions and/or omissions of Plaintiff and, therefore, has no claims or rights as against Plaintiff
11 with respect to the Settlements or the Demand. Defendant KMC contends to the contrary.
12 31. Plaintiff requests a judicial declaration of the respective rights, responsibilities and
13 obligations of Plaintiff concerning Defendant KMC with respect to the Settlements and the
14 Demand. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that Defendant KMC, as an agent for
15 a disclosed principal, had no liability and no loss with respect to the Settlements and that Plaintiff
16 has no responsibility, obligation, or liability to KMC with respect to the Settlements or the
17 Demand.
18 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
19 1. For an Order and Declaration that:
20 a. Plaintiff is not required to arbitrate the Demand with KnightBrook and KMC;
21 b. KnightBrook is not the real party-in-interest with respect to the Settlements, did
22 not sustain any loss with respect to the Settlements, and that Plaintiff has no
23 liability to KnightBrook with respect to the Settlements or the Demand; and
24 c. KMC, as agent for a disclosed principal, did not issue any insurance policy, did
25 not sustain any loss with respect to the Settlements and that Plaintiff has no
26 liability to KMC with respect to the Settlements or the Demand;
27 //
28 //
A RE NT FOX S C HIFF LLP
A T T ORNE YS A T L A W
-6-
S A N F RA NC ISC O
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 2. For attorney’s fees, costs, and other expenses according to proof; and
2 3. For other relief as this Court deems proper.
3
4 Dated: June 27, 2023 ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
5
6 By:
ELLIOTT M. KROLL
7 JEFF LEUNG
Attorney for Plaintiff
8 BRIDGER CLAIMS SERVICES, LLC
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A RE NT FOX S C HIFF LLP
A T T ORNE YS A T L A W
-7-
S A N F RA NC ISC O
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
Preview
1 ELLIOTT M. KROLL (SBN 77074) elliott.kroll@afslaw.com 2 ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 1301 Avenue Of The Americas, Fl. 42 3 New York, NY 10019-6040 Telephone: 212.484.3987 4 Facsimile: 212.484.3990 5 JEFF LEUNG (SBN 310960) jeff.leung@afslaw.com 6 ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 44 Montgomery Street, 38th Floor 7 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415.757.5500 8 Facsimile: 415.757.5501 9 Attorney for Plaintiff BRIDGER CLAIMS SERVICES, LLC 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 12 13 BRIDGER CLAIMS SERVICES, LLC, a CASE NO. Delaware corporation, 14 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: Plaintiff, (1) DECLARATORY RELIEF 15 v. (2) DECLARATORY RELIEF; AND (3) DECLARATORY RELIEF 16 KNIGHTBROOK INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; 17 KNIGHT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a California corporation, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 COMES NOW, Plaintiff BRIDGER CLAIMS SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware corporation 23 (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), for causes of action against Defendants KNIGHTBROOK 24 INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, and KNIGHT MANAGEMENT 25 COMPANY, LLC, a California corporation (hereinafter collectively “Defendants”), and alleges 26 as follows: 27 // 28 A RE NT FOX S C HIFF LLP A T T ORNE YS A T L A W -1- S A N F RA NC ISC O COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 1 PARTIES 2 1. Plaintiff is a limited liability company, duly organized and existing under and by 3 virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware. 4 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that Defendant 5 KNIGHTBROOK INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter “KnightBrook”), is a Delaware 6 corporation doing business in the County of Alameda, State of California, and, at all times 7 relevant herein, was/is engaged in the business of property and casualty insurance in the state of 8 California. 9 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that Defendant, 10 KNIGHT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC (hereinafter “KMC”), is a California corporation, 11 doing business in the County of Alameda, State of California, and, at all times relevant herein, 12 was/is an agent of KnightBrook. 13 JURISDICTION 14 4. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395, jurisdiction is proper in the 15 Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, because the contract in question 16 was entered into and required performance in Alameda County. 17 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 18 5. Plaintiff is a company engaged in the management of insurance claims. 19 The Claims Service Agreement. 20 6. On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff and Knight Management Insurance Services, 21 LLC (hereinafter “KMIS”) performed services as an agent for KnightBrook and entered into the 22 Claims Service Agreement (the “CSA”). A true and correct copy of the CSA is attached hereto as 23 Exhibit 1. KMIS contracted with Bridger to handle claims on insurance policies that were issued 24 by KnightBrook. 25 7. The recitals in the CSA disclosed that any of the insurance business underwritten 26 by KnightBrook was transferred by reinsurance to an offshore insurer, Knight Insurance 27 Company, Ltd., based in the Cayman Islands (“Knight Cayman”). As the CSA set forth, 28 “Reinsurer [Knight Cayman] bears 100% of Insurer’s business, credit and/or insurance risk on A RE NT FOX S C HIFF LLP A T T ORNE YS A T L A W -2- S A N F RA NC ISC O COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 1 certain lines of insurance business . . .” Thus, KnightBrook retained no “business, credit and/or 2 insurance” interest in claims handled by Plaintiff. 3 8. Section XIV of the CSA provides that 4 should there arise a difference of opinion or interpretation of this Agreement or any Disputes arising from or relating to the performance or breach of the 5 Agreement (“Dispute”), the matter shall be resolved by a neutral, binding 6 arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), and not by a court of law. 7 8 9. Furthermore, Section XIV defines “Dispute” to mean “any action, dispute, claim 9 or controversy of any kind arising out of, in connection with or in any way related to the 10 Agreement, Program, contracts, origination, servicing, collection, reporting, or any other aspect 11 whatsoever of the past, present or future relationship or conduct of the Parties.” (Emphasis 12 added.) 13 10. Neither KnightBrook nor KMC are “Parties” to the CSA. 14 The Settlements. 15 11. In an accident that occurred on May 29, 2019, Sandra DeLeon, a driver insured by 16 a policy issued by KnightBrook and reinsured 100% by Knight Cayman, struck cyclist Rene 17 Flores with her car, causing injury. Flores filed suit against DeLeon, and that suit was settled for 18 nearly $9 million (the “DeLeon Settlement”). 19 12. In a different accident that took place in or around the summer of 2019, Oscar 20 Sanchez, a driver insured by a policy issued by KnightBrook and reinsured 100% by Knight 21 Cayman, struck Citlali Bernal Leon with his car while he was backing out of his driveway. That 22 suit was settled for $350,000 (the “Sanchez Settlement,” and together with the DeLeon 23 Settlement, the “Settlements”). 24 13. Insurance companies in the United States are regulated and must file sworn 25 financial statements (quarterly and annually) in accordance with rules promulgated by the 26 National Association of Insurance Commissioners and adopted by all states. Those rules, 27 Statements of Statutory Account Principals (“SSAP”), and state laws require that insurers book 28 losses they sustain. Those financial statements are sworn to under penalty of perjury and, A RE NT FOX S C HIFF LLP A T T ORNE YS A T L A W -3- S A N F RA NC ISC O COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 1 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1033, it is a federal felony to knowingly, with the intent to deceive, make 2 any false material statement in connection with such statutory financial statements for the purpose 3 of influencing insurance regulators. 4 14. KnightBrook did not book as losses in its 2022 Statutory Annual Statement either 5 of the Settlements set forth above. 6 Arbitration Demand. 7 15. On May 5, 2023, together with KMIS, Defendants filed a Demand For Arbitration 8 (hereinafter referred to as the “Demand”) with the American Arbitration Association (hereinafter 9 referred to as “AAA”). The Demand arose from the two accidents above and names as Claimants 10 KnightBrook, KMIS, and KMC. A true and correct copy of the Demand is attached hereto as 11 Exhibit 2. In their Demand, Defendants, which are non-signatories to the CSA, seek amounts 12 from Bridger in the amounts of $8,935,000 and $335,000, relating to the two insurances claims. 13 Ex. 2 ¶¶ 22, 35–36. 14 16. Defendants here—Claimants in the AAA Arbitration—allege in their Demand that 15 Plaintiff failed to properly administer these two separate insurances claims. Claimants assert that 16 as a result of Plaintiff’s conduct, they were forced to settle those claims for a substantially greater 17 amount than would have been paid had Plaintiff handled those claims differently when they were 18 initially made. 19 17. Plaintiff and KMIS are the only named Parties to the CSA. 20 18. KnightBrook and KMC are not Parties to the CSA. 21 19. KMC was not a party to any insurance policy involved in any of the Settlements, 22 did not sustain any loss with respect to either of the Settlements and was solely acting in the 23 capacity of an agent for a disclosed principal, to wit, Defendant KnightBrook. 24 20. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief that KnightBrook and KMC do not have the right 25 to arbitrate any claims against Plaintiff pursuant to the CSA, because those entities are 26 nonsignatories to the contract. 27 21. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory relief that it has no financial obligations to 28 KnightBrook with respect to the two insurances claims for various reasons including but not A RE NT FOX S C HIFF LLP A T T ORNE YS A T L A W -4- S A N F RA NC ISC O COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 1 limited to KnightBrook not being the real party-in-interest, KMC did not sustain any damage, and 2 that actions or omissions of the Plaintiff was not the proximate cause of any the losses 3 purportedly sustained by KnightBrook. 4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 5 (Declaratory Relief as against all Defendants) 6 22. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as 7 though set forth herein in full. 8 23. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and the Defendants. Plaintiff 9 contends Defendants cannot require Plaintiff to arbitrate with Defendants claims set forth in their 10 Demand. Defendants contend to the contrary. 11 24. Plaintiff requests a judicial declaration of the respective rights, responsibilities and 12 obligations of Plaintiff to arbitrate in the AAA Arbitration with Defendants with respect to the 13 Demand. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that it has no obligation to arbitrate in 14 the AAA Arbitration with Defendants with respect to the Demand and that Defendants cannot 15 require that Plaintiff arbitrate with Defendants with respect to the Settlements or the Demand. 16 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 17 (Declaratory Relief as against Defendant KnightBrook) 18 25. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 24, inclusive, as 19 though set forth herein in full. 20 26. Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party-in-interest. CCP 21 § 367. 22 27. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and the Defendant KnightBrook. 23 Plaintiff contends Defendant KnightBrook is not the real party-in-interest with respect to the 24 Settlements or the Demand. Defendant KnightBrook contends to the contrary. 25 28. Plaintiff requests a judicial declaration of the respective rights, responsibilities and 26 obligations of Plaintiff with Defendant KnightBrook with respect to the Settlements and the 27 Demand. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that Defendant KnightBrook is not 28 the real party-in-interest, Defendant KnightBrook sustained no loss with respect to the A RE NT FOX S C HIFF LLP A T T ORNE YS A T L A W -5- S A N F RA NC ISC O COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 1 Settlements, and Plaintiff has no responsibility, obligation, or liability to KnightBrook with 2 respect to the Settlements or the Demand. 3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 4 (Declaratory Relief as against Defendant Knight Management Company LLC) 5 29. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 28, inclusive, as 6 though set forth herein in full. 7 30. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and the Defendant KMC. Plaintiff 8 contends Defendant KMC was not a party to any insurance policy, paid no portion of any of 9 either of the Settlements, and otherwise did not sustain any loss or damage with respect to the 10 actions and/or omissions of Plaintiff and, therefore, has no claims or rights as against Plaintiff 11 with respect to the Settlements or the Demand. Defendant KMC contends to the contrary. 12 31. Plaintiff requests a judicial declaration of the respective rights, responsibilities and 13 obligations of Plaintiff concerning Defendant KMC with respect to the Settlements and the 14 Demand. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that Defendant KMC, as an agent for 15 a disclosed principal, had no liability and no loss with respect to the Settlements and that Plaintiff 16 has no responsibility, obligation, or liability to KMC with respect to the Settlements or the 17 Demand. 18 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: 19 1. For an Order and Declaration that: 20 a. Plaintiff is not required to arbitrate the Demand with KnightBrook and KMC; 21 b. KnightBrook is not the real party-in-interest with respect to the Settlements, did 22 not sustain any loss with respect to the Settlements, and that Plaintiff has no 23 liability to KnightBrook with respect to the Settlements or the Demand; and 24 c. KMC, as agent for a disclosed principal, did not issue any insurance policy, did 25 not sustain any loss with respect to the Settlements and that Plaintiff has no 26 liability to KMC with respect to the Settlements or the Demand; 27 // 28 // A RE NT FOX S C HIFF LLP A T T ORNE YS A T L A W -6- S A N F RA NC ISC O COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 1 2. For attorney’s fees, costs, and other expenses according to proof; and 2 3. For other relief as this Court deems proper. 3 4 Dated: June 27, 2023 ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 5 6 By: ELLIOTT M. KROLL 7 JEFF LEUNG Attorney for Plaintiff 8 BRIDGER CLAIMS SERVICES, LLC 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RE NT FOX S C HIFF LLP A T T ORNE YS A T L A W -7- S A N F RA NC ISC O COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF