IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. ___________________ ST.

PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. PDB SPORTS, LTD. d/b/a DENVER BRONCOS, EDWIN SMITH, FLOYD LITTLE, JOHN ROWSER, LOUIE WRIGHT, GODWIN TURK, BARNEY CHAVOUS, MIKE SCHNITKER, WILLIAM VAN HEUSEN, and RANDOLPH GRADISHAR Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Plaintiff St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul) states for its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. St. Paul is a Connecticut corporation, has its principal place of business in

Connecticut, and is authorized to transact business in the State of Colorado. St. Paul sold insurance policies in Colorado, including workers compensation policies. 2. Defendant PDB Sports, Ltd. (PDB) is a Colorado limited partnership, with its

principal place of business located at 13655 Broncos Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80112.

The sole partner in PDB Sports, Ltd. is Bowlen Sports, Inc. Bowlen Sports, Inc. is an Arizona corporation with its principal place of business located at 13655 Broncos Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80112. 3. PDB does business as the Denver Broncos and, upon information and belief, is

the successor in interest to Rocky Mountain Empire Sports, Inc. d/b/a the Denver Broncos (RMES). RMES was a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business located at 401 First National Bank Building, Denver, Colorado 80202 and/or 5700 Logan Street, Denver, Colorado 80216. Upon information and belief, RMES assigned all of its interests to PDB in 1981, and dissolved in or around 1981. 4. Defendant Edwin Smith is an individual who, at times, played football with the

Denver Broncos, and who has made claims against the Denver Broncos for workers compensation benefits in excess of $100,000. Mr. Smith is a citizen of the State of Colorado, and resides in Denver, Colorado. 5. Defendant Floyd Little is an individual who, at times, played football with the

Denver Broncos, and who has made claims against the Denver Broncos for workers compensation benefits in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). Mr. Little is a citizen of the State of Washington, and resides in Federal Way, Washington. 6. Defendant John Rowser is an individual who, at times, played football with the

Denver Broncos, and who has made claims against the Denver Broncos for workers compensation benefits in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). Mr. Rowser is a citizen of the State of Michigan, and resides in Southfield, Michigan.

-2-

7.

Defendant Louie Wright is an individual who, at times, played football with the

Denver Broncos, and who has made claims against the Denver Broncos for workers compensation benefits in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). Mr. Wright is a citizen of the State of Colorado, and resides in Aurora, Colorado. 8. Defendant Godwin Turk is an individual who, at times, played football with the

Denver Broncos, and who has made claims against the Denver Broncos for workers compensation benefits in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). Mr. Turk is a citizen of the State of Texas, and resides in Orange, Texas. 9. Defendant Barney Chavous is an individual who, at times, played football with

the Denver Broncos, and who has made claims against the Denver Broncos for workers compensation benefits in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). Mr. Chavous is a citizen of the State of South Carolina, and resides in Aiken, South Carolina. 10. Defendant Mike Schnitker is an individual who, at times, played football with the

Denver Broncos, and who has made claims against the Denver Broncos for workers compensation benefits in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). Mr. Schnitker is a citizen of the State of Colorado, and resides in Conifer, Colorado. 11. Defendant William Van Heusen is an individual who, at times, played football

with the Denver Broncos, and who has made claims against the Denver Broncos for workers compensation benefits in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). Mr. Van Heusen is a citizen of the State of Colorado, and resides in Denver, Colorado. 12. Defendant Randolph Gradishar is an individual who, at times, played football

with the Denver Broncos, and who has made claims against the Denver Broncos for workers

-3-

compensation benefits in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). Mr. Gradishar is a citizen of the State of Colorado, and resides in Castle Pines North, Colorado. 13. Edwin Smith, Floyd Little, John Rowser, Louie Wright, Godwin Turk, Barney

Chavous, Mike Schnitker, William Van Heusen, and Randolph Gradishar are collectively referred to herein as the Individual Defendants. 14. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332 as a result

of diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeding the sum of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000.00). 15. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(2) because the

insurance policies that are the subject of this declaratory judgment action were issued in this judicial district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in the judicial district. 16. RMES is the named insured under Standard Workmens Compensation and

Employers Liability Policies, numbers 783NA1438 (effective February 1, 1974 through February 1, 1975), 783NA1909 (effective February 1, 1975 through February 1, 1976), 783NA2553 (effective February 1, 1976 through February 1, 1977), and 783NA3231 (effective February 1, 1977) (collectively, the Policies), issued to RMES by St. Paul. Policy number 783NA3231 was cancelled effective October 10, 1977. 17. 18. The Policies provided coverage only for the State of New Mexico. The Policies provided coverage for a class of employee that did not include

football players.

-4-

19.

The Policies did not apply if RMES had other workers compensation policies or

was a qualified self-insurer. Upon information and belief, RMES had other workers compensation insurance and/or was self-insured for claims in states other than New Mexico, including the States of Colorado and California. 20. At the time the Policies were written, RMES had no operations or employees

within the State of New Mexico. The Policies therefore were issued on an if any basis, to ensure that RMES would have interim workers compensation coverage in New Mexico, if the need later arose. 21. No payroll was provided by RMES to St. Paul to identify any employees to be

covered by the Policies. 22. As a result, RMES was charged only a minimum premium ranging from $70 to

$158 per year. Because RMES identified no employees to be covered by the Policies, St. Paul did not charge any payroll-based premium to RMES. 23. The Individual Defendants have brought workers compensation claims against

PDB in the State of California, as a result of injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Individual Defendants in the State of California (the California Claims). 24. PDB has made a demand under the Policies for payment of benefits relating to the

California Claims. 25. The Policies provide no coverage for the California Claims. Further, certain of

the California Claims fall outside of the policy periods. St. Paul therefore is entitled to a declaration concerning whether it has an obligation under the Policies to pay benefits for, or to defend or indemnify PDB from or against, any workers compensation claims resulting or arising

-5-

from injuries alleged to have been sustained in California, including specifically the California Claims. CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 26. 27. St. Paul incorporates the above paragraphs as if set forth in full herein. There is a real, substantial and justifiable issue in controversy between the parties

hereto with respect to insurance coverage under the Policies in relation to the California Claims. 28. This is an action for declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 for the

purpose of determining a question in actual controversy between the parties. 29. A judicial determination and a declaration of the rights and obligations of the

parties is necessary and appropriate at this time. 30. St. Paul requests that the Court determine whether St. Paul has an obligation

under the Policies to pay benefits for, or to defend or indemnify PDB from or against, any workers compensation claims resulting or arising from injuries alleged to have been sustained in California, including specifically the California Claims. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company prays for a judgment as follows: 1. An order of the Court declaring, adjudicating, and clarifying the rights and

responsibilities of St. Paul and Defendants, and each of them, as follows: That St. Paul has no obligation under the Policies to pay benefits for, or to defend or indemnify PDB from or against, any workers compensation claims resulting or arising from injuries alleged to have been sustained in California, including specifically the California Claims.

-6-

2. 3.

An award of costs as permitted by applicable law. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Respectfully submitted this 6th day of June, 2011.

s/ Carolyn J. Fairless Carolyn J. Fairless Wheeler Trigg ODonnell LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 3600 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 244-1800 (303) 244-1879 Facsimile fairless@wtotrial.com Attorney for Plaintiff St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company

-7-