Roc Nation Feldstein

Case 1:19-cv-00554 Document 1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 32
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case No.: 19-cv-554

ROC NATION LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
-against-
HCC INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, PLC, a United Kingdom-
Domiciled Insurance Company,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Roc Nation LLC (“Roc Nation”), by and through its attorneys Reed Smith LLP,
as and for its complaint against Defendant HCC International Insurance Co., PLC (“HCCI”),
respectfully alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THIS ACTION
1. Plaintiff Roc Nation brings this breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief lawsuit against HCCI because, among other
things:
a. HCCI misrepresented to Plaintiff, during the procurement process of the
Subject Policy (defined below), that Plaintiff was applying for and purchasing from
HCCI standard Key Person insurance policies covering the life of Jordan Feldstein, the
founder and former Chief Executive Officer of Career Artist Management LLC
(“CAM”);
b. HCCI has wrongfully denied insurance coverage for Plaintiff’s clearly
covered loss following the untimely death of Mr. Feldstein based on multiple incorrect
interpretations of various provisions of the policy at issue and, to date, has failed to pay in
excess of 90% of Plaintiff’s claim;
c. HCCI has failed to properly and timely investigate the claim and it has
failed to conclude its investigation in a timely manner as required under the policy;
d. Because the policies drafted and issued by HCCI are so shoddily drafted,
they contains multiple ambiguities each of which must be strictly construed against HCCI
and resolved in favor of coverage for Plaintiff’s claim;
e. HCCI has wrongfully denied insurance coverage for this clearly covered
loss under the policy at issue by falsely claiming that (i) HCCI did not have sufficient
information to timely conclude its investigation of the claim as it is required to do under
the policy; and (ii) Plaintiff has failed to cooperate (which is not true) in the investigation
of its claim and that, as a result, HCCI was justified in denying this claim outright based
upon this purported lack of cooperation (such a claim is totally baseless);
f. HCCI now improperly seeks to reform the standardized form policy
language that it alone originally crafted -- now asserting that it meant to refer to the
“Insured Person” rather than the “Insured” in a clause contained within the definition
of the term “Direct Ascertained Net Loss”.
g. HCCI has also wrongfully denied insurance coverage for this clearly
covered loss under the policy by falsely claiming that, if reformation of its claimed
drafting error is allowed, HCCI is entitled to “subtract” from Plaintiff’s payout, “all
revenue and other value generated as the result of and/or during the time services were
performed by [Mr. Feldstein]” without any temporal limits whatsoever;
-2-
h. HCCI has also wrongfully refused to acknowledge that, under a fair and
reasonable reading of the Subject Policy as a whole, Plaintiff is entitled to include in its
losses the (fairly obvious category of losses) for the amounts it would have earned but for
Mr. Feldstein’s death;
i. HCCI has unreasonably delayed, stalled and engaged in coverage
gamesmanship for well over a year and has, to date, failed to pay in excess of 90% of
Plaintiff’s valid and collectible claim;
j. HCCI improperly viewed the information and documents provided by
Plaintiff solely through the lens of creating an artifice for denying coverage;
k. HCCI has wrongfully refused to acknowledge that, as HCCI itself represents
the scope of its Critical Asset Protection Insurance to the general public, the policy
protected both Plaintiff’s economic investment and anticipated profits in the event of Mr.
Feldstein’s death; and
l. HCCI has wrongfully refused to acknowledge that, as HCCI itself represents
the scope of its Key Person insurance products to the general public consistent with the
titles of the policy applications for both the 2016-17 Policy and 2017-18 Policy, the
Subject Policy insures the “financial loss of a key employee,” like Mr. Feldstein, and
necessarily includes the lost profits that would have been generated but for Mr.
Feldstein’s untimely death.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has diversity jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(2) because this dispute is between a citizen of a State and a citizen or subject of a
foreign state and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
-3-
3. Roc Nation is a citizen, resident, and domiciliary of the State of New York and
HCCI is a citizen of the foreign state of the United Kingdom.
4. Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and Rule 57 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking declaratory judgment to determine an actual case or
controversy regarding a claim for benefits seeking a determination of the rights and obligations
pertaining to the Subject Policy which was issued in this State and this judicial district.
5. Venue in this judicial district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in this
district.
THE PARTIES
6. Roc Nation LLC is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a limited liability
company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business
in New York and an office in California. As a Limited Liability Company, Roc Nation assumes
the citizenship of each of its members. Roc Nation, LLC has two members: (a) Live Nation
Worldwide, Inc.; and (b) Marcy Media, LLC.
a. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation with its principal
place of business in Beverly Hills, California. Thus, Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. is a
citizen of the States of Delaware and California for diversity purposes.
b. Marcy Media, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its
principal place of business in New York, New York. For diversity purposes, the members
of Marcy Media, LLC, are citizens of the States of New York, New Jersey, California,
and Delaware only.
-4-
7. Accordingly, Roc Nation is a citizen, for diversity jurisdiction purposes, of the
States of California, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York.
8. Based upon information and belief, HCCI is a United Kingdom-domiciled
property and casualty insurance company operating globally that was formed in 1981. The
company became part of HCC through acquisition in 2005.1
9. Based upon information and belief, at all relevant times, HCCI was and is
engaged in the business of, among other things, issuing casualty insurance policies to residents of
the States of New York and California; HCCI does business in the State of New York as a
surplus line insurer; HCCI underwrites insurance policies for risks and individuals located in the
States of New York and California; and, according to HCCI, the insurance policies at issue were
“registered and delivered as a surplus line coverage under the [Georgia Code] Surplus Line
Insurance Law, O.C.G.A. Chapter 33-5.”
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Relationship Between Plaintiff and Jordan Feldstein
10. On September 14, 2016, Roc Nation entered into a Purchase Agreement with
CAM, a talent management company, whose founder and CEO at the time was Jordan Feldstein.
11. Roc Nation’s investment in CAM was primarily to secure CAM’s high-profile
music industry clients whose affiliations with CAM were due in large part to personal
relationships those acts and talent had with Mr. Feldstein.
12. Among CAM’s music industry clients, far and away the most valuable client and
asset of CAM was the incredibly successful musical group, “Maroon 5,” led by its lead singer,
Adam Levine. Based on information and belief, Jordan Feldstein and Adam Levine were
childhood friends and the two had a long standing personal and professional relationship.
1
https://www.tmhcc.com/en/about-us/business-structure
-5-
13. Maroon 5 was originally founded in 1994 as “Kara’s Flowers” while its members
were still in high school. The band has released six platinum or multi-platinum studio albums (2
of which reached No. 1 on the Billboard Top Album Sales chart), three live albums, two
compilation albums as well as releasing a number of extend plays and numerous singles,
including 4 songs that reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100. Maroon 5 has also been
nominated for 12 Grammy Awards, winning 3 Grammys.
14. The band recently concluded its seventh world tour in October 2018 and finished
2018 as the biggest act on U.S. radio airwaves, according to Nielsen Music. “The group’s
catalog of songs collected 8.58 billion audience impressions across all monitored radio stations,
from 1.95 million plays of their tunes.”2
B. Plaintiff Purchased Two Successive “Key Person” Insurance Policies from HCCI
15. In order to protect its multi-million dollar investment in CAM and expectations
for the business, Plaintiff prudently purchased two successive “key person” insurance policies
from HCCI insuring the life of Jordan Feldstein.
16. The first HCCI policy covered the periods September 14, 2016 to September 14,
2017, bearing the Unique Market Reference No. B1392BWIF161061 (the “2016-17 Policy”),
which provided Plaintiff with $14,500,000 of insurance coverage. (A true and correct copy of
the 2016-17 Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit A).
17. The second HCCI policy covered the period December 15, 2017 to December 15,
2018, bearing the Unique Market Reference No. B1392BWIF171074 (the “2017-18 Policy” or
the “Subject Policy”), which provided Plaintiff with $12,529,222 of insurance coverage. (A true
and correct copy of the 2017-18 Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit B).
2
https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/8493151/maroon-5-biggest-act-on-us-radio-2018
-6-
18. When securing Key Person insurance, Plaintiff sought to insure coverage in the
event of the Mr. Feldstein’s death. It is undisputed that Maroon 5 alone represented millions of
dollars a year of revenue to CAM and that amount is without considering the other artists that
left CAM after Mr. Feldstein’s death or the acts that Mr. Feldstein surely would have added to
CAM had he survived.
19. Plaintiff did not invest in CAM simply to recoup its original investment. Plaintiff
invested in CAM with the idea of recouping its investment and making a profit for years to come
based on Mr. Feldstein’s skills and attributes. With Mr. Feldstein alive, Plaintiff could and most
likely would have made many tens of millions of dollars in profits over the life of the partnership
(which losses HCCI seeks to simply ignore).
20. The policy applications submitted by Plaintiff in connection with both the 2016-
17 Policy and the 2017-18 Policy confirm Plaintiff’s understanding that it was purchasing “key
person” insurance policies from HCCI insuring the life of Jordan Feldstein.
21. The insurance application form created by HCCI and submitted by Plaintiff in
connection with the 2016-17 Policy is entitled “KEY PERSON FAILURE TO SURVIVE” and
expressly advised Plaintiff that the policy would pay Plaintiff the $14.5 million limits of liability
“for the direct financial loss suffered by [Roc Nation] resulting from the non-performance of
insured contract due solely to the death or disappearance of [Jordan Feldstein] during the policy
of insurance.” (A true and correct redacted copy of the 2016-17 Policy application is attached
hereto as Exhibit C).
22. The application submitted by Plaintiff for the 2016-17 Policy also notes that “no
medical exams or medical records are required for application.” Despite this notation, Mr.
Feldstein completed and submitted a two page Medical Examiners Report to Exceptional Risk
-7-
Advisors (ERA), an authorized HCCI representative located in Mahwah, New Jersey. ERA was
also provided with an additional one page report with attached EKG results submitted in
connection with the 2016-17 Policy.
23. The insurance application form created by HCCI and submitted to HCCI by
Plaintiff in connection with the 2017-18 Policy is entitled “Key Man Proposal Form” which was
understood by all parties to be an application for renewal of the 2016-17 Policy. (A true and
correct redacted copy of the 2017-18 Policy application is attached hereto as Exhibit D).
24. Here, it was undisputed that Jordan Feldstein was CAM’s key person and that,
without Mr. Feldstein’s personal relationships, skills and expertise in the music industry,
including his personal and long standing personal friendship, relationship and connection with
Adam Levine, the lead vocalist of the incredibly successful musical group Maroon 5, CAM
would not have been nearly as valuable or as attractive to Plaintiff as it was.
25. “Key Person” or “Key Man” insurance is generally understood, both within the
insurance industry and by businesses seeking this type of coverage, as being a form of business
life insurance taken out on the life of the key person of a business, such as the owner, founder or
an invaluable employee or two, designed to provide a business with a financial payout should
that key person unexpectedly die.
26. The process of securing a payout under a key person insurance policy is simple: a
company purchases a life insurance policy on the key employee, the company pays the premiums
on the policy and is listed as the beneficiary under the policy and, if the key person unexpectedly
dies, the company receives the insurance payoff once proof of death has been provided.
27. This commonly accepted understanding of Key Person or Key Man insurance is
wholly consistent with Plaintiff’s reasonable expectations as to the type of insurance coverage it
-8-
was purchasing from HCCI as evidenced by the “Key Person Failure to Survive” and the “Key
Man Proposal Form” applications discussed above.
28. HCC itself defines Key Man or Key Person insurance as a “policy purchased by a
third party to insure for the financial loss of a key employee whose expertise and skill-set have
established them as an irreplaceable asset to their firm.”3 Neither the HCCI policy applications
nor the HCC Website hint that this broad “financial loss” is tethered to baffling insurance policy
provisions that HCCI later issued.
29. HCCI defines “Critical Asset Protection Insurance” as a unique and distinct
solution that protects the economic investment of a key person or persons in the event of death
by any cause…. If that person dies or suffers a catastrophic injury, it could have a serious impact
on your client's balance sheet. CAP can shield you from this exposure.”4
30. Plaintiff simply requested (and reasonably believed it had purchased) coverage
upon the death of Mr. Feldstein in the insured amount. This is consistent with the protection
described on HCCI’s website; i.e., an insurance policy to protect Plaintiff against the
unanticipated and untimely death of Jordan Feldstein, CAM’s key executive who held the long-
term relationships with music industry clients like Maroon 5.
31. Instead of receiving traditional Key Person life insurance policies consistent with
Plaintiff’s reasonable expectations as evidenced by the policy application forms created by HCCI
and submitted by Plaintiff, HCCI issued to Plaintiff insurance policies entitled “Critical Asset
Protection Insurance.”
32. HCC describes “Critical Asset Protection” insurance this way: it is a “unique and
distinct solution that protects the economic investment of a key person or persons in the event of
3
See, https://www.tmhcc.com/en/categories/accident-and-health/key-man; emphasis added (accessed 1/1/19).
4
See, https://www.tmhcc.com/en-us/products/critical-asset-protection; emphasis added (accessed 1/1/19).
-9-
death by any cause. The product can be used to provide insurance protection for one individual
or for a group, such as a sports team or an executive team. The human capital and economic
exposure of corporations, professional sports organizations or even an endorsement company can
be a massive if an unexpected death or calamitous injury occurs.”5
C. The HCCI Policy Language and The Myriad of Ambiguities in the Two Policies
33. Both the 2016-17 Policy and the 2017-18 Policy are rife with undefined terms,
ambiguities, and undisclosed material changes from the coverages, terms, conditions and
limitations set forth in the 2016-17 Policy to those contained in 2017-18 Policy.
34. Both the 2016-17 Policy and the 2017-18 Policy also expressly state that the
“proposal form [i.e., the applications], together with all documents and information provided by
the Insured, or on their behalf in support of the proposal, forms the basis of and is incorporated
into this insurance.” (See Page 7 of the 2016-17 Policy and Page 9 of the 2017-18 Policy;
emphasis added).
35. The “Critical Asset Protection Insurance” Policies issued by HCCI to Plaintiff
contain ambiguous, confusing and convoluted insuring agreements and related definitions
alternatively covering Plaintiff’s “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” (the 2016-17 Policy) or its
“Direct Net Ascertained” loss (the 2017-18 Policy) “directly resulting from the non-
performance of the Specific Contract due to the Insured Person’s Failure to Survive during the
Period of Insurance.” (Page 8 of Exhibit A and Page 10 of Exhibit B; underlined emphasis
added).
36. Both the 2016-17 Policy and 2017-18 Policy also include the following provision:
“words in bold print in this insurance have special meaning, as defined in the DEFINITIONS of
5
See, https://www.tmhcc.com/en-us/products/critical-asset-protection; emphasis added (accessed 1/16/19).
- 10 -
this insurance.” The words, terms and phrases set out in bold in the HCCI policies are also set
off from the rest of the policy language through the use of initial capital letters.
37. The Insuring Agreement of the 2016-17 Policy states:
38. The Insuring Agreement of the 2017-18 Policy states:
39. While these insuring agreements appear, at first blush, to be similar, they are not.
The earlier policy insures against Plaintiff’s “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” whereas the later
issued policy insures against Plaintiff’s “Direct Net Ascertained loss.” The 2017-18 Policy not
only juxtaposes “Net” as modifying “Ascertained” instead of “Net” modifying “Loss,” and the
2017-18 Policy also fails to either capitalize or bold the word “loss.”
40. Because of these ambiguities, the 2017-18 Policy does not include a definition of
“Direct Net Ascertained loss” but, instead, defines “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” (which is
the covering language found in the 2016-17 Policy not in the 2017-18 Policy) using a perplexing
and opaque loss calculation and, to compound those errors, the 2016-17 Policy defines “Direct
Ascertained Net Loss” differently than the 2017-18 Policy and HCC never advised Roc Nation
of the change.
- 11 -
41. The 2016-17 Policy defines “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” as follows:
42. The 2017-18 Policy defines “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” as follows:
43. Set forth below is a graphic depiction of the differing policy definitions of
“Direct Ascertained Net Loss”:
2016-17 POLICY 2017-18 POLICY

“Direct Ascertained Net Loss” … “means the “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” … “means the
amount remaining that the insured is obliged to amount remaining that the insured is obliged to
pay to satisfy it’s [sic] financial obligation or pay to satisfy it’s [sic] financial net loss obligation
incurs as a loss under the insured contract after or incurs as a loss under the Specific Contract
subtracting all revenue and other value generated after subtracting all revenue and other value
- 12 -
as the result of and/or during the time services generated as the result of and / or during the time
were performed by the Insured Person.” services were performed by the Insured.”
44. The ambiguity created by these different definitions is compounded by the fact
that neither policy defines “financial obligation” or “financial net loss obligation.”
45. To make a difficult interpretation of an ambiguous policy impossible, the 2016-17
Policy definition of “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” refers to the “Insured Person” (defined in
the policy as Jordan Feldstein), whereas the 2017-18 Policy definition of “Direct Ascertained
Net Loss” refers to the “Insured” (defined as Roc Nation).6
46. Thus, substituting the correct names of the “Insured Person” and “Insured” into
the definitions of “Direct Ascertained Net Loss,” the provisions read:
2016-17 POLICY 2017-18 POLICY

“Direct Ascertained Net Loss” … “means the “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” … “means the
amount remaining that the insured is obliged to pay amount remaining that the insured is obliged to pay
to satisfy it’s [sic] financial obligation or incurs as to satisfy it’s [sic] financial net loss obligation or
a loss under the insured contract after subtracting incurs as a loss under the Specific Contract after
all revenue and other value generated as the result subtracting all revenue and other value generated as
of and/or during the time services were performed the result of and / or during the time services were
by Jordan Feldstein.” performed by Roc Nation.”
47. The 2016-17 Policy does not define the phrase “financial obligation,” which
seems relatively straightforward, and the 2017-18 Policy does not define the term “financial net
loss obligation,” which is significantly less clear.
48. Based upon specific information contained in each policy, it is clear that the
drafting of the 2016-17 Policy and the 2017-18 Policy were part of standardized form policy
language crafted by HCCI and utilized by HCCI for any and all “Critical Asset Protection
Insurance” policies issued by the carrier.
6
Both the 2016-17 Policy and the 2017-18 Policy identify Jordan Feldstein as the “Insured Person” on both the
Risk Details page and in the definition section. The Risk Details page of the 2016-17 Policy lists Roc Nation as the
“Assured” (without providing a definition of “Assured” in the policy) and as the “Insured” in the 2017-18 Policy.
- 13 -
49. The 2016-17 Policy specifically notes that the policy wording is based upon a
2011 standardized form created by HCCI::
50. Similarly, the 2017-18 Policy specifically notes that the policy wording is based
upon a newly drafted 2017 standardized form created by HCCI:
51. In short, each, every and all of the ambiguities contained in the 2017-18 Policy
discussed herein are based upon and present in HCCI’s standardized 2017 policy form issued to
every “Critical Asset Protection Insurance” policyholder and, as such, they are not the result of
an error in a manuscript policy specifically drafted for a particular policyholder but, instead, the
confusing and shoddily drafted policy provisions at issue survived the internal scrutiny that any
standardized policy form usually undergoes after being created by an insurer, like HCCI.
52. HCCI unilaterally made the above noted changes in the definition of the term
“Direct Ascertained Net Loss” as set out in the renewed 2017-18 Policy without notice to
Plaintiff and these significant policy changes were made by HCC unilaterally after the death of
Mr. Feldstein. Prior to Mr. Feldstein’s death, the coverage had been bound but a copy of the
actual policy had not been provided to Plaintiff.
- 14 -
53. Pursuant to established law, HCCI was required to notify Plaintiff of all material
changes to coverage-limiting clauses in policy renewals such as the changes above.
54. No coverage changes were ever specifically identified in any correspondence
accompanying the renewal documents for the 2017-18 Policy.
D. Jordan Feldstein’s Death and Plaintiff’s Claim Submission to HCCI
55. Sadly, Mr. Feldstein unexpectedly passed away in Los Angeles on December 22,
2017, after he went into cardiac arrest.
56. On or about December 27, 2017, Plaintiff advised HCCI of Mr. Feldstein’s
untimely death through the policies’ Placing Broker, Bretton Woods.
57. Because Mr. Feldstein was the founder and CEO of CAM, his death had a
tremendous impact on CAM’s business, the extent of which Plaintiff has more than adequately
demonstrated to HCCI.
58. On April 6, 2018, Roc Nation timely submitted a proof of loss to HCCI and noted
that the sum insured under the 2017-18 Policy was $12,529,222.
59. On May 2, 2018, HCCI responded to Roc Nation’s proof of loss submission by
acknowledging the 2017-18 Policy limit of liability of $12,529,222.00 and requested further
information in order to complete its investigation. At that time, HCCI also appointed outside
forensic accountants who subsequently presented Roc Nation with an extensive laundry list of
requested documents and information despite the fact that, as noted above, Plaintiff’s loss of
Maroon 5 alone as part of the CAM assets over the next few years substantially dwarfs (by more
than three times) both the $12,529,222 policy limits of the 2017-18 Policy and any revenues
generated by other CAM clients.
60. On May 30, 2018, Plaintiff promptly responded to HCCI and to HCCI’s forensic
accountants by fully complying with all information and document requests.
- 15 -
61. However, in an attempt to stall payment of any amount to which Roc Nation was
entitled to, HCCI began a procrastination process that lasted several months and has now
stretched to beyond a year after Mr. Feldstein’s death, by continually claiming that it did not
have enough information to pay the claim and by continually and constantly requesting
additional documents from Plaintiff on multiple occasions.
62. In many instances, HCCI’s requests were unreasonably broad and lacked any
temporal limitations. HCCI also requested information related to false media reports and
information that HCCI knew was not within Plaintiff’s control to provide. Many of these
requests have been duplicative and many others sought overtly irrelevant information. In other
cases, HCCI has made unreasonably broad document requests such as ‘any communications
between the estate and Roc Nation” or ‘reports on all post death revenue’ with no limitations
whatsoever.
63. At all times, Plaintiff fully and completely cooperated with these unreasonable
requests and Plaintiff has, at all times, acted in good faith by producing to HCCI and its forensic
accountants the requested information and documents or, alternatively, by directing HCCI to the
proper party or parties for documents outside of Plaintiff’s control.
64. On August 8, 2018, Roc Nation responded to HCCI’s further request for
information with its “fifth (5th) detailed reply to information requests” related to the submission
of its claim, to which HCCI replied on August 13, 2018 wherein HCCI falsely claimed to still
not have sufficient information to complete its investigation or make a coverage determination.
65. Ultimately, Roc Nation produced hundreds of pages of financial data, legal
documents, and other information in response to more than a half-dozen requests from HCCI and
- 16 -
engaged in communications for more than a year without payment of more than 90% of the
policy limits rightfully due to Plaintiff under the 2017-18 Policy.
66. Pursuant to the express terms of both the 2016-17 Policy and the 2017-18 Policy,
HCCI agreed to complete its investigation in a “timely manner” after reasonable requests:
67. Ignoring its obligations to timely settle the claim and pay Plaintiff the policy
limits upon Mr. Feldstein’s death, HCCI instead engaged in a lengthy campaign to delay and
avoid its payment obligations.
68. Plaintiff has requested, on multiple occasions, that HCCI narrow its shotgun
approach to seeking irrelevant and overly broad requests or, at a minimum provide support for
such requests. HCCI rejected or failed to respond to these requests.
69. HCCI has also requested information outside of Plaintiff’s control and, despite
having no obligation to do so, Plaintiff has also put HCCI in contact with relevant third parties
and their counsel and has encouraged those parties to cooperate with HCCI.
70. When HCCI realized that its lengthy campaign to delay paying all or any part of
Plaintiff’s valid and collectable claim breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, HCCI sent yet another request for even more information to Plaintiff by letter dated
August 13, 2018, and in that letter offered to make an “advance payment” of less than 10%
($1,176,595) of Plaintiff’s valid and collectible claim.
71. HCCI claimed that this interim payment was for the potential revenue lost for
CAM’s clients that either left CAM or did not join Plaintiff, other than Maroon 5.
- 17 -
72. In its August 13 letter, HCCI specifically noted that the interim payment offered
“would not represent a full and final value of the claim, but a value of what has been confirmed
for this particular portion of the claim thus far.”
73. On August 20, 2018, Roc Nation accepted HCCI’s offer of $1,176,595 as an
interim payment, specifically noting that its acceptance did not constitute an admission that the
amount was sufficient to satisfy any portion of the claim.
74. HCCI’s long campaign designed to stall, delay and make every effort to minimize
its payment obligations under the Subject Policy, culminated in an unprecedented forty-six (46)
page denial letter dated September 28, 2018, in which HCCI denied outright “the remainder of
the Insured’s claim;” i.e., the $11,352,627 owed over and above the interim payment of
$1,176,595.
75. In its 46-page September 28, 2018 denial letter, HCCI breached the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing implied in the 2017-18 Policy issued to Plaintiff as detailed herein.
E. HCCI’s Misplaced Reliance on Ambiguous Provisions of the 2017-18 Policy to

Outright and Wrongfully Deny Plaintiff’s Valid Claim Constitutes Bad Faith
76. HCCI seeks to limit Plaintiff’s valid and collectible claim by falsely asserting that
a phrase found, not in the exclusion section of the 2017-18 Policy but, rather, in the definition of
“Direct Ascertained Net Loss” allows HCC to re-calculate Plaintiff’s loss ad infinitum. That
phrase is: “subtracting all revenue and other value generated as the result of and/or during the
time services were performed by the Insured.”
77. HCCI’s interpretation of the limitation clause in the definition of “Direct
Ascertained Net Loss” is untenable and it is not supported by established law or by the language
of HCCI’s own standardized policy.
- 18 -
78. HCCI’s interpretation of the limitation clause in the definition of “Direct
Ascertained Net Loss” invokes an outrageously unrealistic view of what can be accomplished
by a dead person because HCCI is claiming that all CAM revenue forever is “generated as a
result of” Mr. Feldstein and that simply is not reality in the artist management business.
79. Talent needs constant attention and HCCI’s position in this case diminishes the
value of many hardworking people who work to keep an artist’s career moving forward on a
daily basis.
80. The “subtracting all revenue” clause is neither clear, unambiguous nor specific,
and it certainly failed to advise the policyholder that, in the event of Mr. Feldstein’s death, HCCI
could withhold payment of the policy limits for an undefined period of time potentially lasting 5,
10 or 20 years.
81. If HCCI had wanted to limit coverage in the manner it now proposes, HCCI and
HCCI alone was legally obligated to clearly and unambiguously advise Plaintiff that the payout
under the HCC Key Man insurance policy could be delayed for a decade or more and HCCI
failed to do so.
82. In its 46-page denial letter, HCCI relied on its own ambiguous language in the
2017-18 Policy when it quoted verbatim the definition of “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” and
then stated “all revenue and other value generated as the result of and/or during the time services
were performed by Feldstein must be subtracted from any amounts remaining to be recouped on
the Aggregate Purchase Price.”
83. However, as noted above, HCCI’s own policy defines Mr. Feldstein as the
“Insured Person” and Roc Nation as the “Insured.” So HCCI’s insertion of Mr. Feldstein in
the 2017-18 Policy definition is not supported by HCCI’s policy language and, because Roc
- 19 -
Nation performed no services for CAM, no revenue subtractions could be made under that
provision.
84. Roc Nation, on its part, performed no services for CAM and therefore no
deductions could or should be made under the express language of the last clause of the
definition of “Direct Ascertained Net Loss.”
85. HCCI’s interpretation of this clause as having no temporal limit runs contrary to
HCCI’s obligation under the express provisions of the policy it crafted, to complete its
investigation and settle the claim “in a timely manner” [Page 12 of the 2017-18 Policy] and the
fact that the policy requires that any legal action by Roc Nation must be commenced within 3
years of the date written proof of loss is submitted [Page 15].
86. Both the 2016-17 Policy and the 2017-18 Policy expressly note that Plaintiff must
file any legal action against HCCI “within three (3) years of the date the written proof of loss is
required to be submitted”:
87. Despite this explicit temporal limitation on Plaintiff’s right to pursue legal
recourse, HCCI takes the position that it is entitled to “subtract all revenue and other value
generated as the result of and/or during the time services were performed by [Plaintiff]” through
some unspecified period of time (unlimited according to HCCI’s 46-page denial letter), well
beyond the 3-year limitation period in the policy.
88. Allowing HCCI an indefinite period of time to pay the claim as HCCI now
suggests is directly at odds with the other time limitations set forth in HCCI’s own policy and,
- 20 -
because established law requires that the policy be interpreted as a whole, HCCI’s “no temporal
limits” position should be rejected.
89. Because the “subtracting all revenue” clause is susceptible to the more reasonable
interpretation and understanding of the policyholder; i.e., that it must both practically and
necessarily include a temporal limitation, the clause is rendered vague and ambiguous and must
be interpreted in favor of coverage for Plaintiff’s claim and strictly against HCCI.
90. Because HCCI is wielding the “subtracting all revenue” clause of the definition of
“Direct Ascertained Net Loss” as a sword in an attempt to limit or otherwise preclude coverage
for Plaintiff’s loss, HCCI was duty bound to express such purported exclusionary language in
clear, unequivocal and unambiguous terms. HCCI failed to do so, not only HCC chose to alter
the definition of “Ascertained Net Loss” to include the value generated by the “Insured” rather
than those generated by the “Insured Person” as in the 2016-17 Policy but also by injecting the
undefined term “net loss” into the “financial obligation” language of the 2017-18 Policy
definition in contravention of established law.
91. Under established law, the HCCI policy must be read in light of the reasonable
expectations of the average policyholder in order to determine whether the provision, as written,
is sufficiently clear and precise such that there is no room for reasonable disagreement about the
scope of coverage.
92. Here, Plaintiff’s reasonable expectations were that, because Plaintiff purchased a
Key Person insurance policy on Jordan Feldstein and the “Insured” was listed as Plaintiff under
both policies, Plaintiff would receive the policy limits of $12,529,222.00 soon after Mr.
Feldstein’s unexpected death.
- 21 -
93. No reasonable policyholder in Plaintiff’s position would interpret the “subtracting
all revenue” clause in the definition of “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” as allowing HCCI to
delay, stall and withhold payment under the policy for undefined and unlimited period of law.
The impracticality of such a position alone renders the clause vague, ambiguous and
unenforceable.
94. In its 46-page denial letter, HCCI also wrongly contends that it is entitled to
subtract all post-mortem revenue ad infinitum, Plaintiff is not entitled to include in the revenue
calculations, all “losses associated with Mr. Feldstein’s lack of participation over the expected
term of the business” because, according to HCCI, such a position is meritless and not supported
by the Policy language.”
95. Indeed beyond the investment loss suffered by Plaintiff under the Purchase
Agreement (which is a fixed number), it is only reasonable to look to the future to project the
true financial losses Plaintiff will suffer as well; i.e., what would Mr. Feldstein’s continued
involvement in CAM have meant to Roc Nation financially?
96. Under HCCI’s revised definition of “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” in the 2017-
18 Policy, HCCI agreed to reimburse Plaintiff for its “financial net loss obligation” as well as
amounts the Plaintiff “incurs as a loss” under the Specific Contract. HCCI failed to define the
phrase “financial net loss obligation.”
97. However, because the definition of “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” (a) includes
the word “loss” in the defined term itself, (b) includes the term loss in the undefined term
“financial net loss obligation,” and (c) includes the phrase “incurs a loss,” as part of the amounts
covered under the Subject Policy it is both fair and reasonable to interpret that provision as
allowing Plaintiff to offset any deductions to be made by HCCI, as against any and all losses
- 22 -
sustained by Plaintiff as a direct result of Mr. Feldstein’s death, consistent with the reasonable
expectations of the Plaintiff and based upon a fair and reasonable interpretation of the policy as a
whole in order to determine the Loss attributable to Mr. Feldstein’s death.
98. In its 46-page denial letter, HCCI also raised a number of issues it never raised
before none of which preclude coverage here.
99. Additionally, HCCI’s claim that, after having fully and completely responded to
over a half dozen requests for information and documentation, Plaintiff has somehow violated
the cooperation clause of the policy such that HCCI has any arguable right to deny coverage
based upon a baseless claim in this regard is wholly without merit and its attempt to rely on this
pretext to deny coverage constitutes bad faith.
100. HCCI’s refusal to timely pay Plaintiff’s claim has caused Plaintiff to suffer
significant consequential damages. When the HCCI policies were issued, HCCI understood
that, if HCCI breached the policies, Plaintiff would suffer consequential damages.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM

UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED
(Breach of Insurance Contract)
101. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 100 are repeated and incorporated by
reference as though more fully stated herein.
102. Plaintiff has fully complied with and have performed all of the conditions and
covenants on their part to be performed under the Subject Policy.
103. HCCI breached the Subject Policy in a number of ways including, without
limitation, the following:
- 23 -
a. Failing and refusing to acknowledge coverage for the full policy limits of
the Subject Policy;
b. Failing and refusing to pay Roc Nation the full policy limits of the Subject
Policy and, instead, denying coverage outright for $11,352,627 of the $12,529,222 policy
limits;
c. Failing to properly and timely investigate the Claim and to conclude its
investigation in a timely manner as required under the policy; and
d. Misrepresenting during the procurement process that Plaintiff was applying
for and purchasing standard Key Person insurance;
e. Improperly interpreting the “subtracting all revenue” limiting language of
the definition of “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” in the Subject Policy as having no
temporal limit and wrongfully insisting that it is entitled to reduce the payout under the
Subject Policy beyond the reasonable understanding of Plaintiff and any reasonable
interpretation of the language of the Subject Policy;
f. Wrongfully refusing to acknowledge that, under a fair and reasonable
reading of the Subject Policy as a whole, Plaintiff is entitled to reduce the “subtractions”
sought to be made by HCCI with the losses incurred by Plaintiff during the same period
of time directly;
g. Wrongfully refusing to acknowledge that, as HCCI itself represents the
scope of its Critical Asset Protection Insurance to the general public, the Subject Policy
protected Plaintiff’s economic investment and anticipated profits in the event of Mr.
Feldstein’s death; and
- 24 -
h. Wrongfully refusing to acknowledge that, as HCCI itself represents the
scope of its Key Person insurance products to the general public consistent with the titles
of the policy applications for both the 2016-17 Policy and 2017-18 Policy, the Subject
Policy insures the “financial loss of a key employee” like Mr. Feldstein and necessarily
includes the lost profits that would have been generated but for Mr. Feldstein’s untimely
death.
104. Plaintiff has been damaged, in an amount to be established at trial, as a direct and
proximate result of the above listed contract breaches (and others) committed by HCCI.
105. As a direct and proximate result of HCCI’s breaches of its obligations, Plaintiff
has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial direct monetary damages in an amount to be
established at trial, including consequential damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
and costs incurred by Plaintiff in bringing this action against HCCI.
106. These damages are foreseeable damages incurred by Plaintiff as a direct result of
HCCI’s wrongful conduct, which were contemplated by the parties when they negotiated and
executed the HCCI policies and should be awarded so that Plaintiff is adequately compensated
for HCCI’s wrongful conduct.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM

(Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
108. Implied in the Subject Policy is a covenant that HCCI would act in good faith and
deal fairly with Plaintiff. That obligation includes, among other things, an obligation that HCCI
would not do anything to interfere with the Plaintiff’s rights to receive the benefits due and
- 25 -
owing under the Subject Policy and that HCCI would give as much, if not more, consideration to
the Plaintiffs’ interest as HCCI gave to its own interests in responding to this loss.
109. Instead of complying with these duties and obligations, HCCI has acted in bad
faith by, among other things, unreasonably, without good cause, and in bad faith:
a. Viewing, in bad faith, the information, records and documents provided by
Plaintiff in support of its claim through the lens of creating an artifice for denying
coverage rather than supporting coverage;
b. Engaging in a systematic and orchestrated effort to stall, delay and stonewall
payment of Plaintiff’s valid and collectible claim;
c. Failing to promptly and properly investigate Plaintiff’s claim with an eye
towards honoring its contractual obligations while stringing the Plaintiff along;
d. Wrongfully insisting that the “subtracting all revenue” language of the
definition of “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” in the Subject Policy has no temporal limit;
e. Wrongfully insisting that it is entitled to reduce the payout under the Subject
Policy way beyond the reasonable understanding of Plaintiff and way beyond a
reasonable interpretation of the language of the Subject Policy;
f. Wrongfully refusing to acknowledge that, under a fair and reasonable
reading of the Subject Policy as a whole, Plaintiff is entitled to reduce the “subtractions”
sought to be made by HCCI with the losses incurred by Plaintiff during the same period
of time directly resulting from Mr. Feldstein’s death and the loss of artists, including
Maroon 5, who had previously been with Mr. Feldstein;
g. Wrongfully refusing to acknowledge that, as HCCI itself represents the
scope of its Critical Asset Protection Insurance to the general public, the Subject Policy
- 26 -
protected Plaintiff’s economic investment and anticipated profits in the event of Mr.
Feldstein’s death;
h. Wrongfully refusing to acknowledge that, as HCCI itself represents the
scope of its Key Person insurance products to the general public consistent with the titles
of the policy applications for both the 2016-17 Policy and 2017-18 Policy, the Subject
Policy insures the “financial loss of a key employee” like Mr. Feldstein and necessarily
includes the lost profits that would have been generated but for Mr. Feldstein’s untimely
death;
i. Wrongfully claiming that, after having fully and completely responded to
over a half dozen requests for information and documentation, Plaintiff has somehow
violated the cooperation clause of the policy such that HCCI has any arguable right to
deny coverage based upon a baseless claim in this regard; and
j. Otherwise acting contrary to the obligations imposed by the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the Subject Policy.
110. In breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, HCCI did the
things and committed the acts alleged above for the purpose of consciously withholding from
Plaintiff the rights and benefits to which Plaintiff is entitled under the Subject Policy.
111. The acts described above by HCCI are (a) inconsistent with Plaintiff’s reasonable
expectations; (b) contrary to established claims practices and legal requirements; (c) contrary to
insurance industry custom and practice; and (d) contrary to the express terms of the Subject
Policy. They constitute bad faith.
112. As a direct and proximate result of the unreasonable and bad faith conduct of
HCCI, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages under the Subject Policy, plus
- 27 -
interest, and other economic and consequential damages, in a total amount to be shown at the
time of trial.
113. As a direct and proximate result of HCCI’s breaches of its obligations, Plaintiff
has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial direct monetary damages in an amount to be
established at trial, including consequential damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
and costs incurred by Plaintiff in bringing this action against HCCI.
114. These damages are foreseeable damages incurred by Plaintiff as a direct result of
HCCI’s wrongful conduct, which were contemplated by the parties when they negotiated and
executed the HCCI policies and should be awarded so that Plaintiff is adequately compensated
for HCCI’s wrongful conduct.
115. The conduct by HCCI is despicable and outrageous, and was done with a
conscious disregard of the rights and reasonable expectations of the Plaintiff and the public at
large, constituting oppression, fraud, and/or malice. HCCI engaged in the acts cited herein for
the sole purpose of improperly denying benefits due under the Subject Policy. HCCI’s continued
use of an ambiguous standardized form to subsequently deny coverage after an insured
experiences a calamitous event is morally reprehensible and egregious.
116. Specifically, by acting as alleged above, in light of the information, facts, and
relevant law to the contrary, HCCI consciously disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff.
117. By doing these things, HCCI wrongfully deprived the Plaintiff of the benefit of
the policy and inflicted substantial damage on the Plaintiff. HCCI ignored the interests and
concerns of the Plaintiff, with the requisite intent to injure. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to
recover punitive damages from HCCI in an amount that is sufficient to punish and make an
example of HCCI and in order to deter similar conduct by HCCI in the future.
- 28 -
118. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to recover all of the costs, expenses, and
attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred by the Plaintiff to obtain the benefits of insurance that have
been, and continue to be, wrongfully and in bad faith withheld by HCCI. When the precise
amounts of these costs, expenses and fees are known, the Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to
amend this complaint.
119. HCCI should be held liable for punitive damages, because it engaged in egregious
tortuous conduct, as described more fully herein and as will be established at the time of trial.
Punitive damages are warranted to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM

(Declaratory Relief)
121. An actual controversy has arisen, and now exists, between Plaintiff on the one
hand and HCCI on the other, with respect to whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the full
$12,529,222 policy limits of the Subject Policy.
122. As to this controversy, the Plaintiff requests that the Court make and enter a
binding judicial declaration that:
a. HCCI is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the full $12,529,222 policy limits of
the Subject Policy;
b. HCCI led Plaintiff to reasonably belief that it was purchasing traditional
“Key Person” and “Key Man” insurance, as set forth in the applications for both the
2016-17 Policy and the 2017-18 Policy both of which were specifically incorporated into
each policy;
- 29 -
c. As written, the definition of “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” in the Subject
Policy requires HCCI to take into consideration the losses Plaintiff has suffered and will,
in the future suffer, as a direct result of Mr. Feldstein’s death;
d. As written, the definition of “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” in the Subject
Policy prohibits HCCI from subtracting any revenue or other value generated as result of
and/or during the time services were performed by the Insured [Roc Nation]” because
Plaintiff performed no services for CAM and, therefore, no deductions could or should be
made under the express language of the last clause of the definition;
e. HCCI is not entitled, under established law, to reform its policy to change
“Insured” to “Insured Person” as used in the definition of “Direct Ascertained Net
Loss” crafted by HCCI for its standard policy form and as used in the Subject Policy;
f. Because the “subtracting all revenue” clause in the definition of “Direct
Ascertained Net Loss” in the Subject Policy is susceptible to the more reasonable
interpretation and understanding of the policyholder; i.e., that it must both practically and
necessarily include a temporal limitation, the clause is rendered vague and ambiguous
and must be interpreted in favor of coverage for Plaintiff’s claim and strictly against
HCCI.
g. Because the definition of “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” as used in the
Subject Policy includes the word “loss” in the defined term itself and because it includes
the term loss in the undefined term “financial net loss obligation,” and because it includes
the phrase “incurs a loss,” as part of the amounts covered under the Subject Policy, that
provision must be interpreted as allowing Plaintiff to offset any deductions to be made by
- 30 -
HCCI, as against any and all losses sustained by Plaintiff as a direct result of Mr.
Feldstein’s death;
h. If HCCI is allowed to reform the Subject Policy to change “Insured” to
“Insured Person” as used in the definition of “Direct Ascertained Net Loss” drafted by
HCCI, then HCCI’s attempt to limit coverage under that definition by “subtracting all
revenue and other value generated as the result of and/or during the time services were
performed by [Mr. Feldstein]” must, consistent with a plain reading of the policy
language as a whole, include a temporal limit to such deductions;
i. No exclusions apply to bar coverage; and
j. Plaintiff has fully complied with all requirements under the Subject Policy.
123. The requested declarations are both necessary and proper at this time under the
circumstances in that the interests of judicial economy and substantial justice will be served
thereby.
124. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon that basis alleges, that HCCI disputes
all or part of the contentions set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
125. Plaintiff seeks the judicial declarations set forth above.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
126. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on each issue triable thereby.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment:
a. Awarding compensatory and consequential damages in favor of Plaintiff against

Defendant for all damages sustained as a result of Defendant’s wrongdoing, in an
amount to be determined at trial, including interest thereon;
- 31 -
b. Awarding punitive damages in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant for all

damages sustained as a result of Defendant’s wrongdoing, in an amount to be
proven at trial, including interest thereon;
c. Making the judicial declarations set forth above in favor of Plaintiff and in favor
of coverage for Plaintiff’s claim;
d. Awarding Plaintiff its reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including counsel fees and expert fees; and
e. Awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: January 18, 2019
Reed Smith LLP
By: /s/ Christopher P. Hoffman

Christopher P. Hoffman
REED SMITH LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: (212) 521-5400
Facsimile: (212) 521-5450
Richard C. Giller
(pro hac vice application
forthcoming)
REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Avenue
Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 457-8028
Attorneys for Plaintiff,

ROC NATION, LLC
- 32 -

Roc Nation Feldstein

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Roc Nation Feldstein

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Roc Nation Feldstein

Uploaded by

Copyright:

What is the nature of the lawsuit?

What is the nature of the lawsuit?

What are some of the specific claims made against the defendant?

What are some of the specific claims made against the defendant?

Case 1:19-cv-00554 Document 1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No.: 19-cv-554

Plaintiff, (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

HCC INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE

respectfully alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THIS ACTION

a. HCCI misrepresented to Plaintiff, during the procurement process of the

b. HCCI has wrongfully denied insurance coverage for Plaintiff’s clearly

excess of 90% of Plaintiff’s claim;

and resolved in favor of coverage for Plaintiff’s claim;

information to timely conclude its investigation of the claim as it is required to do under

upon this purported lack of cooperation (such a claim is totally baseless);

f. HCCI now improperly seeks to reform the standardized form policy

of the term “Direct Ascertained Net Loss”.

performed by [Mr. Feldstein]” without any temporal limits whatsoever;

Mr. Feldstein’s death;

i. HCCI has unreasonably delayed, stalled and engaged in coverage

Plaintiff’s valid and collectible claim;

j. HCCI improperly viewed the information and documents provided by

k. HCCI has wrongfully refused to acknowledge that, as HCCI itself represents

Feldstein’s death; and

l. HCCI has wrongfully refused to acknowledge that, as HCCI itself represents

Feldstein’s untimely death.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

HCCI is a citizen of the foreign state of the United Kingdom.

5. Venue in this judicial district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)

Worldwide, Inc.; and (b) Marcy Media, LLC.

a. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation with its principal

citizen of the States of Delaware and California for diversity purposes.

b. Marcy Media, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its

and Delaware only.

7. Accordingly, Roc Nation is a citizen, for diversity jurisdiction purposes, of the

States of California, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York.

8. Based upon information and belief, HCCI is a United Kingdom-domiciled

company became part of HCC through acquisition in 2005.1

Insurance Law, O.C.G.A. Chapter 33-5.”

A. Relationship Between Plaintiff and Jordan Feldstein

relationships those acts and talent had with Mr. Feldstein.

nominated for 12 Grammy Awards, winning 3 Grammys.

from 1.95 million plays of their tunes.”2

from HCCI insuring the life of Jordan Feldstein.

the 2016-17 Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit A).

CAM had he survived.

(which losses HCCI seeks to simply ignore).

hereto as Exhibit C).

connection with the 2016-17 Policy.

would not have been nearly as valuable or as attractive to Plaintiff as it was.

that key person unexpectedly die.

Man Proposal Form” applications discussed above.

provisions that HCCI later issued.

term relationships with music industry clients like Maroon 5.

exposure of corporations, professional sports organizations or even an endorsement company can

be a massive if an unexpected death or calamitous injury occurs.”5

Period of Insurance.” (Page 8 of Exhibit A and Page 10 of Exhibit B; underlined emphasis

37. The Insuring Agreement of the 2016-17 Policy states:

38. The Insuring Agreement of the 2017-18 Policy states:

“Direct Ascertained Net Loss”:

2016-17 POLICY 2017-18 POLICY