Cases

PER CURIAM Defendant insurance company appeals a supplemental judgment in plaintiffs favor in this action for under-insured motorist (UIM) benefits under ORS 742.502 and ORS 742.504. On appeal, defendant assigns error to the trial court’s award of attorney fees and costs under ORS 742.061(1), a statute that requires insurance companies to pay attorney fees to an insured who prevails in an action to recover insurance benefits,

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 43802 JOEL W. HARMON and KATHLEEN F. ) HARMON, husband and wife, ) ) Boise, January 2017 Term Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) 2017 Opinion No. 43 v.

VILLANTI, Chief Judge. In these consolidated appeals, William Edward Goellner and his insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (collectively Goellner), seek review of the final judgment entered in favor of Arthur L. and Barbara J. Brewer in this *510 personal injury case arising from

1. Def’s Pro Se PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COAU-1125) 2. Def’s Pro Se Motion to Suspend Rules and Consider PDR Timely Filed 3. Def’s Pro Se Motion in the Alternative to Consider PDR a Petition for Writ, of Mandamus 4. Def’s Pro Se Motion in the Alternative to Consider PDR a Petition for Writ of Prohibition 5. Def’s Pro S

Okder • GREGORY A. PRESNELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the Court on motions to dismiss (Doc. 120,121,123, 125) filed by various groups of Defendants, the responses in opposition (Doc. 133,134,153) to those motions filed by the Plaintiffs, and the replies (Doc. 137,138,146,154) filed by the movants. The portions of those motions having to do with the Plaintiffs’ state law claims

Order GREGORY A. PRESNELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the Cozurt on motions to dismiss (Doc. 89, 90, 92) filed by various groups of Defendants, the response in opposition (Doc. 98) to those motions filed by the Plaintiffs, and the replies (Doc. 99, 101, 103, 104) filed by the movants. The portions of those motions having to do with the Plaintiffs’ state law claims have been re

Order GREGORY A. PRESNELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the Court after a hearing on various motions to dismiss (Doc. 209-211) filed by the Defendants, the response in opposition (Doc. 216) filed by the Plaintiffs, the replies (Doc. 224, 226, 228) filed by the Defendants, and the sur-reply (Doc. 235). I. Background The instant case is one of

Order GREGORY A. PRESNELL, District Judge. On March 2, 2015, Magistrate Judge Smith issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 78), recommending that the Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 9, 17, and 19) be granted and that the Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed. The Plaintiffs filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 79), to which the Defendants responded (Does. 80-82). By thei

Order GREGORY A. PRESNELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the. Court on motions to dismiss (Doc., 37, 41, 42, 45) filed by various groups of Defendants, the responses in opposition (Doc. 58, 59) to those motions filed by the Plaintiff, and the replies (Doc. 60-63) filed by the mov-ants. The portions of those motions having to do with the Plaintiffs state law claims have been referre

4 So.3d 1136 (2008) Salim S. DJIBRINE v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and David K. Franz. 2070518. Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. August 22, 2008. *1137 Arthur Shores Lee, Birmingham, for appellant. Rufus E. Elliott III, Birmingham, for appellees. MOORE, Judge. On March 31, 2006, State F

353 F.Supp.2d 1242 (2005) Susan KINGSLEY, individually, as surviving spouse of Scott Kingsley, deceased, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Scott Kingsley, deceased, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. No. 1:03-CV-0923-WSD. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. January 31, 2005.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinions in Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 252-255, 725 N.E.2d 261, 267-269. I do not believe that Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 33, 723 N.E.2d 97, 103, correctly disposes of appellant’s second proposition of law that challenges the validity of a nam

PER CURIAM. We affirm without comment all issues raised by appellant/cross-appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., and appellees/cross-appellants, Brenda and Terry Gulledge, in this appeal and cross-appeal from a final judgment entered in this action for uninsured motorist benefits, except that relating to the lower court’s error in denying State Farm’s motion to reduce Brenda Gulledge’s damage award for past l

liKOSTELKA, Judge Pro Tempore. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) seeks review of a judgment of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Parish of DeSoto, which denied State Farm’s motion for summary judgment on an issue involving uninsured motorist insurance (“UM”). A writ of certiorari was granted to afford review of the entire record. The judgment denying State Farm’s motion for summary judgment

995 P.2d 276 (2000) 196 Ariz. 234 Kimberly K. ZILISCH, a single person, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross Appellee. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Cross Appellant. No. CV-98-0535-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. March 3, 2000. *277 Thur & O

611 N.W.2d 7 (2000) Carol BECKER, et al., petitioners, Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. No. C6-99-288. Supreme Court of Minnesota. May 25, 2000. *8 John P. Dehen, New Brighton, for appellants. Ken D. Schueler, Dunlap and Seeger, P.A., Rochester, Kay Nord Hunt, Lommen, Nelson, Cole

Beasley, Presiding Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. “The object of [the alternative requirements of physical contact or eyewitness to the occurrence] is to eliminate fictitious claims of a driver who, through his own negligence, causes injury to himself without the involvement of another vehicle, and then seeks recovery on the grounds that it was due to a fictitious hit-and-run driver with the resulti

PER CURIAM. Ronald Fleagle, the insured, appeals from an order of final summary judgment determining that his loss was not covered by his vehicle PIP policy. We reverse. Ronald Fleagle was injured in his insured vehicle while transporting a loaded shotgun to his pastor’s church. The pastor had been counseling Fleagle regarding marital problems and depression, and asked him to store the shotgun at the chur

261 Kan. 711 (1997) 933 P.2d 748 JAMES M. EIDEMILLER, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. 73,861. Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed March 7, 1997. David T. Greis, of William H. Pickett, P.C., of Kansas City, Missouri, argued the cause, and William H. Pickett, Gregory J. Abella, and

185 Ariz. 174 (1996) 913 P.2d 1092 Bobby Sid TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. No. CV-94-0505-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Panel. April 11, 1996. Thur, Dawson & O'Sullivan by Calvin C. Thur, Steven C. Dawson, Scott