Case 3:21-cv-04356-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MARINA PORTNOVA
`Bar No. 206723
`Email: MPortnova@lowenstein.com
`LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
`390 Lytton Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`Telephone: (650) 433-5720
`Facsimile: (650) 433-5721
`
`Counsel for Foster Farms, LLC
`and Foster Poultry Farms
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`FOSTER FARMS, LLC AND FOSTER
`POULTRY FARMS,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE
`COMPANY,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`________________________________________
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 21-cv-4356
`
`
` [Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon]
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiffs Foster Farms, LLC (“Foster Farms”) and Foster Poultry Farms (“Foster
`
`Poultry”) (collectively “Foster”), by and through undersigned counsel, bring this action and
`
`allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`This is an action against Defendant Everest National Insurance Company
`
`(“Everest”) for breach of contract and declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2201.
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04356-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`Everest sold Foster a liability insurance policy with antitrust coverage but has denied any
`
`coverage obligation for three purported class action lawsuits that allege antitrust claims. See
`
`Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., et al. v. Agri Stats, et al., No. 1:19-cv-8318 (N.D. Ill. filed Dec.
`
`19, 2019); Sandee’s Catering v. Agri Stats, et al., No. 1:20-cv-2295 (N.D. Ill. filed Apr. 13,
`
`2020); Gnemi, LLC v. Agri Stats, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-07371 (N.D. Ill. filed Dec. 11, 2020)
`
`(collectively “Turkey-Market Lawsuits”). Copies of the operative complaints are attached as
`
`Exhibits A, B and C.
`
`2.
`
`Foster Farms and Foster Poultry are family-owned, family-managed companies
`
`with their headquarters in Livingston, California. They employ thousands of individuals in
`
`California and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`3.
`
`Everest sold Private Company Liability Policy, Number PC8ML00004-191 (the
`
`“Policy”) to Foster for the policy period May 7, 2019 to May 7, 2020 (the “Policy Period”). A
`
`true and correct copy of the Policy is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`4.
`
`As part of the Antitrust Coverage Endorsement (“Antitrust Coverage”) in the
`
`Policy, Everest agreed to provide broad coverage for antitrust claims. The Antitrust Coverage
`
`adds a $5 million limit for antitrust claims and deletes an exclusion in the Policy for claims
`
`“based upon, arising out of or attributable to an actual or alleged violation of” the antitrust laws.
`
`5.
`
`The Turkey-Market Lawsuits allege, among other things, antitrust claims against
`
`Foster and other suppliers of turkey in connection with the sale and production of turkey. The
`
`claims in the Turkey-Market Lawsuits, therefore, fall within the Antitrust Coverage.
`
`6.
`
`After receiving notice of the Turkey-Market Lawsuits, Everest denied coverage
`
`for any portion of Foster’s defense and thereby breached its obligations under the Policy.
`
`2
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04356-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Foster Poultry is a corporation organized under the laws of California with its
`
`principal place of business in California. Foster Poultry engages in the production of
`
`conventional, organic and antibiotic-free food products. Foster Poultry’s portfolio offers a full
`
`variety of fresh, frozen and ready-to-eat products that meet clear consumer needs.
`
`8.
`
`Foster Farms is a corporation organized under the laws of California with its
`
`principal place of business in California. Foster Farms, among other things, operates farms
`
`where it raises animals and sells livestock feed and feed ingredients to local dairies. None of
`
`Foster Farms’ members are domiciled, have its principal place of business, or are incorporated in
`
`Delaware or New Jersey.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Everest is an insurance company organized under the laws of the State
`
`of Delaware with its principal place of business in New Jersey.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1332 because complete diversity of citizenship exists between Foster and Everest and the amount
`
`in controversy exceeds $75,000.
`
`11.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Everest because the Policy covers
`
`Foster’s business operations in California and was issued and/or delivered in California, and
`
`Foster’s principal place of business and state of organization is California.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because a
`
`substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, including Everest’s sale of the Policy,
`
`occurred in this District.
`
`3
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04356-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`A.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`The Policy Has Broad Antitrust Coverage
`
`13.
`
`The Policy provides insurance coverage for the period May 7, 2019 to May 7,
`
`2020. Foster has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in premiums to Everest and otherwise
`
`complied with all terms and conditions of the Policy.
`
`14.
`
`Everest drafted the Policy, including the Antitrust Coverage, using standard-form
`
`language that it filed with state insurance regulators and over which it claims a copyright.
`
`15.
`
`Under the Policy, Everest agreed that it would insure “all Loss for which the
`
`Company becomes legally obligated to pay on account of a Claim first made against the
`
`Company during the Policy Period . . . for a Wrongful Act.” Ex. D at 57 of 75 (Endorsement
`
`17.) Everest defined “Wrongful Act” to include “any actual or alleged error, misstatement,
`
`misleading statement, neglect, breach of duty, omission or act by the Company[.]” Ex. D at 60
`
`of 75 (Endorsement 17.)
`
`16.
`
`The term “Loss” is defined to include “Claim Expenses,” which in turn is defined
`
`as “that part of a Loss consisting of the reasonable fees (including attorneys’ fees and experts’
`
`fees) and expenses incurred by the Insureds (except any salaries, wages, overhead, benefits or
`
`benefit expenses associated with any Insured) in the investigation, defense or appeal of a Claim,
`
`including the premium for appeal, attachment or similar bonds (without any obligation by the
`
`Insurer to apply for or furnish such bonds).” Ex. D at 51, 59 of 75 (Endorsement 16.) Everest
`
`agreed in the Policy to “advance covered Claim Expenses within ninety (90) days after the
`
`receipt by the Insurer of properly detailed Claim Expenses invoices.” Ex. D at 12 of 75.
`
`17.
`
`In the body of the Policy, Everest drafted a comprehensive antitrust exclusion,
`
`which would have barred loss from Claims “based upon, arising out of or attributable to an
`
`actual or alleged violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Clayton Act or the Federal Trade
`
`4
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04356-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`Commission Act, as amended, or any other federal, state, local, common or foreign laws
`
`involving anti-trust, monopoly, price fixing, price discrimination, predatory pricing, restraint of
`
`trade, unfair trade practices or tortious interference with another’s actual or prospective business
`
`or contractual relationships or opportunities; provided this exclusion shall not apply to any Claim
`
`by one or more shareholders of the Company in their capacity as such” (the “Antitrust
`
`Exclusion”). Ex. D at 22 of 75.
`
`18.
`
`For an additional premium, Everest added broad Antitrust Coverage through the
`
`addition of an endorsement. Ex. D at 71 of 75 (Endorsement No. 21).
`
`19.
`
`Specifically, Everest agreed to pay up to a $5 million limit and to cover Foster for
`
`“all Loss for which the Company becomes legally obligated to pay on account of any Anti-Trust
`
`Claim first made against the Company during the Policy Period . . . .” Ex. D at 71 of 75
`
`(Endorsement No. 21).
`
`20.
`
`Everest defined “Anti-Trust Claim” as “a Claim for violation of the Sherman
`
`Anti-Trust Act, the Clayton Act, the Robinson-Patman Act, as amended, or any other similar
`
`federal, state, local or foreign law involving anti-trust, monopoly, price fixing, price
`
`discrimination, predatory pricing or a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act or any
`
`unfair or deceptive trade practices related to business competition, tortious interference in
`
`another’s business or contractual relationships, anti-trust, monopoly, price fixing, price
`
`discrimination, or predatory pricing.” Id.
`
`21.
`
`As part of the Antitrust Coverage, Everest also agreed to delete the Antitrust
`
`Exclusion from the Policy. Everest’s intent in doing so was to make clear that antitrust claims
`
`were covered – not excluded – under the Policy.
`
`22.
`
`Prior to selling the Policy, Everest completed a detailed review of Foster’s
`
`operations and the potential risks in selling Foster liability insurance coverage. In view of the
`
`5
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04356-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`fact that companies in the food industry, including Foster, increasingly had been named in
`
`antitrust complaints alleging price fixing, Everest understood Foster was exposed to the potential
`
`risk of antitrust claims alleging price fixing activities.
`
`B.
`
`The Turkey-Market Lawsuits Allege Antitrust Claims
`
`23.
`
`Foster was first named as Defendants in the Turkey-Market Lawsuits during the
`
`Policy Period. As such, the Turkey-Market Lawsuits were first made and/or are deemed to be
`
`made during the Policy Period.
`
`24.
`
`There were no antitrust actions pertaining to the turkey market filed against Foster
`
`before the Policy Period.
`
`25.
`
`The alleged classes in the Turkey-Market Lawsuits are persons who directly or
`
`indirectly purchased turkey from January 1, 2010 through January 1, 2017. The plaintiffs assert
`
`claims against eleven companies that produce turkey (the “Turkey Producers”) alleging that they
`
`conspired between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2017 to suppress the supply of turkey and
`
`increase the price of turkey in the United States in violation of antitrust laws.
`
`26.
`
`The Turkey-Market Lawsuits contain claims that constitute “Antitrust Claims”
`
`within the meaning of the Policy.
`
`27.
`
`Coverage for the Turkey-Market Lawsuits is not barred by any exclusion in the
`
`Policy.
`
`28.
`
`Foster provided timely notice of the Turkey-Market Lawsuits to Everest and
`
`requested that Everest provide coverage under the Policy’s Antitrust Coverage Endorsement.
`
`C.
`
`Everest Refuses To Provide Insurance Coverage For The Turkey-Market Lawsuits
`
`29.
`
`On June 3, 2020, Everest denied coverage for Foster’s defense costs in the
`
`Turkey-Market Lawsuit. A true and correct copy of Everest’s denial letter is attached as Exhibit
`
`E.
`
`6
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04356-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`30.
`
`In its denial, Everest asserted that the Turkey-Market Lawsuits were excluded
`
`from coverage under the “Specific Matter Exclusion.” Ex. E.
`
`31.
`
`The Specific Matter Exclusion uses standard-form language that Everest drafted
`
`and filed with state insurance regulators, including the California Department of Insurance, and
`
`over which it claims a copyright.
`
`32.
`
`The Specific Matter Exclusion is confined in scope and applies only in limited
`
`circumstances involving three specific Events.
`
`33.
`
`Specifically, the Specific Matter Exclusion provides as follows:
`
`The Insurer shall not be obligated to defend or be liable to pay
`Loss on account of any: (i) Claim based upon, arising out of, or
`attributable to any Events; (ii) investigation, defense, prosecution,
`adjudication, settlement, disposition or resolution of any Event(s);
`or (iii) any Claim alleging the same or substantially the same
`Wrongful Acts, Interrelated Wrongful Acts, facts, circumstances or
`situations underlying or alleged in any Events:
`
`Events
`-AIG Claim #501-519830-001 (Claimant: BROILER CHICKEN
`ANTITRUST)
`-AIG Claim #501-478035-001 (Claimant: ALEXANDER WONG)
`-Zurich Claim #9410555146 (Claimant: Fair Labor Standards Act)
`
`It is further understood and agreed that the Insurer shall not be
`obligated to defend or be liable for Loss on account of any Claim
`alleging, based upon, arising out of, or attributable to or in any way
`related directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, to an Interrelated
`Wrongful Act (as that term is defined below) regardless of
`whether such Claim involved the same or different claimants, the
`same or different Insureds, the same or different legal causes of
`action or is brought in the same or different venue or resolved in
`the same or different forum.
`
`For the purposes of this endorsement, the term Interrelated
`Wrongful Act means : (i) any fact, circumstance, act or omission
`alleged in any Event(s) and/or (ii) any Wrongful Act which is the
`same as, is similar or related to, or a repetition of, any Wrongful
`Act alleged in any Event(s).
`
`
`7
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04356-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN
`UNCHANGED.
`
`
`Ex. D at 50 of 75.
`
`
`34.
`
`The three specified “Events” refer to claims numbers created by other insurance
`
`companies in connection with three previous claims files.
`
`35.
`
`Everest asserts that Turkey-Market Lawsuits are related to “AIG Claim #501-
`
`519830-001 (Claimant: BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST).” AIG Claim #501-519830-001
`
`(the “AIG Claim File”) refers to a claim number established by National Union Fire Insurance
`
`Co. (“AIG”). The AIG Claim File contains Foster’s insurance claim to AIG for the lawsuits
`
`consolidated as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 16-cv-08637 (N.D. Ill.)
`
`(“Broiler Chicken Litigation”) — litigation first commenced four years ago alleging, among
`
`other things, antitrust violations against the twenty largest chicken-producing companies in the
`
`United States pertaining to alleged anti-competitive conduct in the broiler-chicken market.
`
`36.
`
`The Turkey-Market Lawsuits were not known to Foster before the Policy Period
`
`and, upon information and belief, are not part of AIG’s Claim File.
`
`37.
`
`As with any exclusion, Everest bears the burden of proving the Specific Matter
`
`Exclusion applies. Everest’s denial is based on its contention that the Turkey-Market Lawsuits
`
`are related to the Broiler Chicken Litigation.
`
`38.
`
` Everest has other language that it could have used if it intended to bar coverage
`
`for claims like those asserted in the Turkey-Class Action but it chose not. For example, Everest
`
`commonly adds broad exclusion to policies to bar coverage for all Claims alleging Wrongful
`
`Acts taking place prior to a policy’s inception. Everest added no such exclusion to the Policy.
`
`Instead, Everest drafted the Specific Matter Exclusion and limited the exclusion to claims with a
`
`connection to three specified “Events.”
`
`8
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04356-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`39.
`
`Everest’s denial does not explain how the claims at issue relate to an insurer’s
`
`claim and ignores the numerous differences between the Turkey-Market Lawsuits and the Broiler
`
`Chicken Litigation.
`
`40.
`
`The alleged objectives of the defendants in the Turkey-Market Lawsuits and the
`
`defendants in the Broiler Chicken Litigation are different. The Turkey-Market Lawsuits allege
`
`that the Turkey-Producing Defendants conspired to restrain the growth in the supply of turkey,
`
`which had the effect of increasing prices. Exs. A to C. By contrast, the Broiler Chicken
`
`Litigation contains allegations that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
`
`the price of Broilers.
`
`41.
`
`The cases involve different markets and products – a fact emphasized by the
`
`underlying plaintiffs. The production and sale of turkey is completely different from the
`
`production and sale of chicken. The markets involve different producers, different actors,
`
`different production methods, and different pricing. Within Foster, there are different
`
`individuals responsible for turkey production and broiler chicken production. By contrast to
`
`broilers, Foster’s whole-turkey segment is essentially a seasonal business with the vast majority
`
`of whole turkeys sold in November and December.
`
`42.
`
`Given the different alleged conspiracies involving different markets with different
`
`production methods, the alleged antitrust schemes and conduct in the Turkey-Market Lawsuits
`
`and the Broiler Chicken Litigation also are distinct. The underlying plaintiffs in the Broiler
`
`Chicken Litigation allege a scheme by the defendants to violate competition laws by (1)
`
`destroying their own stock by destroying incubating eggs prior to hatching, breaking eggs prior
`
`to placement in the incubators, reducing the number of breeder chickens so that fewer eggs are
`
`laid, relying upon one another’s production to meet customer needs, and exporting excess broiler
`
`chicken breeder flocks to Mexico; and (2) manipulating the Georgia Dock Price Index. The
`
`9
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04356-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`plaintiffs in the Turkey-Market Lawsuits, on the other hand, allege a scheme by the defendants to
`
`violate competition laws by restraining the growth in the supply of turkey.
`
`43.
`
`The cases involve different parties because different companies are involved in
`
`unrelated conduct. The three largest producers of turkey—Butterball, Jennie-O Turkey Store,
`
`and Cargill—do not have chicken operations and are not defendants in the Broiler Chicken
`
`Litigation. Pilgrim’s Pride and Sanderson Farms—the second and third largest producers of
`
`broiler chickens——are defendants in the Broiler Chicken Litigation, but do not produce turkeys
`
`and therefore are not defendants in the Turkey-Market Lawsuits. Kraft Foods is a Turkey
`
`Defendant, but is a plaintiff in the Broiler Chicken Litigation.
`
`44.
`
`In sum, the alleged conspiracy in the Turkey-Market Lawsuits is different from
`
`the alleged conspiracy in the Broiler Chicken Litigation, and alleges a separate agreement among
`
`different actors to share different information to further different objectives in a completely
`
`different manner.
`
`45.
`
`Given the multiple differences between the Turkey-Market Lawsuits and the
`
`Broiler Chicken Litigation, the United States District Court overseeing the Turkey-Market
`
`Lawsuits held in denying a motion to transfer that the claims are not related.
`
`46.
`
`On January 10, 2020, for tactical reasons, the Turkey Plaintiffs filed a motion to
`
`transfer the case to Judge Thomas M. Durkin, who presides over the Broiler Chicken Litigation.
`
`Everest relied heavily on the filing of this Motion in its denial letter. Ex. E at 2-3.
`
`47.
`
`On November 3, 2020, Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the United States District
`
`Court of Northern District of Illinois presiding over the Turkey-Market Lawsuits denied the
`
`motion to transfer because the alleged antitrust schemes were “entirely distinct”:
`
`This case and Broiler Chicken, although sharing some similarities
`in facts and parties, cannot reasonably be classified as related
`because they do not grow out of the same transaction or occurrence
`
`10
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04356-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`as required by Local Rule 40.4(a). . . . The cases are also not
`susceptible of disposition in a single proceeding because they
`allege different
`facts about entirely different markets.
`Adjudicating Plaintiffs’ claims in this case will require the Court to
`‘weigh all of the circumstances of [the] case’ including ‘specific
`information about the relevant business,’ the market structure, and
`purported market power of the defendants. . . . That inquiry in this
`turkey antitrust case is entirely distinct from the inquiry required
`in Broiler Chickens.
`
`
`Ex. F at 1 (emphasis added).
`
`48.
`
`Even with these major differences between the lawsuits and the trial court’s
`
`ruling, Everest asserts that the Turkey-Market Lawsuits and Broiler Chicken Litigation are
`
`related presumably because both contain allegations pertaining to the sharing of information
`
`through a company called Agri Stats, Inc.
`
`49.
`
`Agri Stats provides domestic and international customers in the chicken, turkey,
`
`commercial egg, and swine industries with reports to identify efficiency opportunities on a farm,
`
`flock, or plant level.
`
`50.
`
`The Agri Stats reports at issue in the Broiler Chicken Litigation contain different
`
`data than the Agri Stats reports at issue in the Turkey-Market Lawsuits. The underlying
`
`plaintiffs in the Broiler Chicken Litigation allege that the Agri Stats reports at issue included
`
`“data on weighted average price, top third average, bottom third average, and volume traded on a
`
`daily, weekly, and monthly basis, and supply, sales volume by detailed product type and form,
`
`export, and pricing information for whole and cut-up Broilers.” The underlying plaintiffs in the
`
`Turkey-Market Lawsuits allege, “Agri States issue[d] separate reports in the turkey industry to
`
`the integrator defendants regarding live operations, processing, further reprocessing, feed costs,
`
`and sales.”
`
`11
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04356-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`51.
`
`The separate Agri Stats reports at issue in the Broiler Chicken Litigation and the
`
`Turkey-Market Lawsuits are alleged to have been received by a completely different group of
`
`companies and utilized in a completely different manner.
`
`52.
`
`The “Wrongful Acts” alleged in the Turkey-Market Lawsuits are not the receipt
`
`of information from Agri Stats, but the alleged agreement among producers of turkey to share
`
`information to raise prices.
`
`53.
`
`There are allegations in the Turkey-Market Lawsuits that have nothing to do with
`
`Agri Stats. For example, the Turkey-Market Lawsuits allege that “[i]n addition to their
`
`participation in Agri Stats, defendant integrators had frequent opportunities to communicate, in
`
`conjunction with formal meetings of various trade associations.” See, e.g., Ex. A at ¶ 22. The
`
`Turkey-Market Lawsuits further allege that “the National Turkey Federation each year held
`
`regular meetings, including the NTF Annual Convention and the NTF Leadership conference,
`
`which were widely attended by the defendant integrators.” See, e.g., Ex. A at ¶ 22. The
`
`complaints in the Turkey-Market Lawsuits also contain sections labeled “Defendants had
`
`numerous opportunities to collude” setting forth various meetings, events, and trade associations
`
`during which the plaintiffs allege defendants may have conspired to cut production and increase
`
`pricing. See, e.g., Ex. A at 41-42. These allegations are unique to the Turkey-Market Lawsuits
`
`and are not in the Broiler Chicken Litigation.
`
`54.
`
`Further, the Policy contains an Allocation Provision that contemplates claims
`
`could covered and uncovered matters. Ex. D at 11 of 75. That provision provides that, “if in
`
`any Claim under the Liability Coverage Parts the Insureds incur both Loss covered by this policy
`
`and loss not covered by this policy . . . because the Claim against the Insureds includes both
`
`covered and uncovered matters . . . , the Insureds and the Insurer shall use their best efforts to
`
`allocate such amount between covered Loss and uncovered loss based upon the relative legal and
`
`12
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04356-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`financial exposures of the parties to covered and uncovered matters.” Id. Everest has not
`
`acknowledged any portion of the claim is covered and has not offered any allocation to Foster.
`
`55.
`
`At a minimum, the Policy is ambiguous because it provides broad Antitrust
`
`Coverage and a Specific Matter Endorsement with unclear parameters.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT I
`Declaratory Judgment – Duty to Defend
`
`56.
`
`Foster incorporates by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
`
`55 into Count I.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`The Policy is a valid and enforceable contract.
`
`Everest has a coverage obligation for the defense of any claim brought against
`
`Foster that is made and reported during the Policy Period and that potentially falls within the
`
`coverage of the Policy.
`
`59.
`
`The Turkey-Market Lawsuits were first made against Foster and reported to
`
`Everest during the Policy Period.
`
`60.
`
`The Turkey-Market Lawsuits against Foster fall, or potentially fall, within the
`
`coverage of the Policy.
`
`61.
`
`Everest asserts that the Specific Matter Exclusion precludes all coverage. The
`
`exclusion does not apply.
`
`62.
`
`The Policy obligates Everest to pay Foster’s defense costs in the Turkey-Market
`
`Lawsuits.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`Everest has denied any defense obligation for the Turkey-Market Lawsuits.
`
`Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, there is an actual and justiciable
`
`controversy concerning whether Everest has a defense obligation for the Turkey-Market
`
`13
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04356-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 14 of 15
`
`
`
`Lawsuits and whether the Specific Matter Exclusion bars coverage for the Turkey-Market
`
`Lawsuits. This controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a
`
`declaratory judgment. Foster seeks a declaration that the Policy obligates Everest to fully fund
`
`Foster’s defense for the Turkey-Market Lawsuits and that the Specific Matter Exclusion does not
`
`apply.
`
`COUNT II
`Breach of Contract
`
`65.
`
`Foster incorporates by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
`
`55 into Count II.
`
`The Policy is a valid and enforceable contract.
`
`Under the Policy, Everest agreed to pay Foster’s defense costs.
`
`The Turkey-Market Lawsuits contain or potentially contain covered claims under
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`the Policy.
`
`69.
`
`Everest refused to provide defense coverage to Foster for the Turkey-Market
`
`Lawsuits and thereby breached its contractual obligations to Foster.
`
`70.
`
`Foster has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages because of Everest’s breach.
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, the Foster prays for relief as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Judgment on Count I of this Complaint declaring that Everest has a duty to
`
`advance 100% of Foster’s defense costs above the $1 million retention in the Antitrust Coverage
`
`and declaring the exclusion asserted by Everest does not apply.
`
`2.
`
`Judgment on Count II of this Complaint for breach of contract and awarding
`
`damages in an amount to be proven;
`
`14
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04356-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 15 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Pre- and post-judgment interest against Everest; and
`
`For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Foster demands a trial by jury on all issues triable by a
`
`jury.
`
`
`Dated: June 8, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Marina Portnova
`
`MARINA PORTNOVA
`Bar No. 206723
`LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
`390 Lytton Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`Telephone: (650) 433-5720
`Facsimile: (650) 433-5721
`Email: MPortnova@lowenstein.com
`
`
`Counsel for Foster Farms, LLC and Foster
`Poultry Farms
`
`
`Of Counsel
`Andrew M. Reidy (pro hac vice motion to be filed)
`Joseph M. Saka (pro hac vice motion to be filed)
`Lowenstein Sandler LLP
`2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Suite 500E
`Washington, DC 20037
`202.753.3800
`973.597.6193 (fax)
`areidy@lowenstein.com
`jsaka@lowenstein.com
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`