Cases

383 F.Supp.2d 200 (2004) LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, v. THE BLACK & DECKER CORP., Black & Decker, Inc., Black & Decker, U.S. Inc., Emhart Corp., and Emhart Industries, Inc., Defendants. Nos. Civ.A.96-10804-DPW, Civ.A.04-10657-DPW, Civ.A.04-10684-DPW. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. August 25, 2004.

496 S.E.2d 54 (1998) William N. RANDALL, et al. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. Record No. 970789. Supreme Court of Virginia. January 9, 1998. Martin A. Thomas (Decker, Cardon, Thomas & Weintraub, on brief), Norfolk, for appellants. Alan B. Rashkind (Furniss, Davis, Rashkind & Saunders, on brief), Norfolk, for appellee. Present: All the Ju

NO. 12-14-00123-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE § APPEAL FROM THE 273RD COMPANY, APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT RICKIE SIMS, APPELLEE § SHELBY COUNTY, TEXAS M

ORDER JAMES E. GRITZNER, Senior Judge This matter comes before the court on a motion for partial summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Pella Corporation, Pella Windows and Doors of Ontario Corporation, and Pella Windows and Doors, Inc. (collectively, Pella). Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty) resists. A hearing on the Motion was held on February 15, 2017. Attorneys Keith McKenna, Marc Lad

PER CURIAM. Decker Plastics Corp. (Decker) sold plastic bags to Al’s, Inc. (Al’s). Al’s filled the bags with landscaping materials (sand and rock) and stored them outdoors for sale to its wholesale customers. Because Decker failed to manufacture the bags with an ultraviolet inhibitor, the bags deteriorated in the sunlight, spilling rock and sand off pallets and causing shreds

ORDER JAMES E. GRITZNER, Senior Judge, U.S. DISTRICT COURT This matter comes before the Court on cross-motions for partial summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Pella Corporation, Pella Windows and Doors of Ontario Corporation, and Pella Windows and Doors, Inc. (collectively, Pella), ECF No. 169, and Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual), ECF No. 168. Both parties have filed responses

*987 PER CURIAM. At the time in question, Al’s, Inc. of Storm Lake, Iowa (“Al’s”), packaged and sold landscaping materials. Decker Plastics Corp. (“Decker”) sold plastic bags to Al’s that Al’s filled with landscaping materials (sand and rock) and stored outdoors for sale to its customers. Because Decker

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 24-1660 FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. PETERSON'S OIL SERVICE, INC.; HOWARD WOOD PETERSON, JR.; KRISTEN PETERSON HALUS; SHEENA MARANDINO; SEAN MARANDINO; NANCY CARRIGAN; CLAIRE FREDA; KELLEY FREDA; ALICE HART; ROBERT F. HART; TORRE MASTROIANNI; and CONGREGATION BETH ISRAEL OF

JUSTICE HASSELL delivered the opinion of the Court. I. In this appeal, we consider whether Code § 15.2-1809 bars a plaintiff’s tort claims against the City of Hampton, which operates the Hampton Coliseum, and its employee, a building mechanic assigned to work at that facility. Code § 15.2-18

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 18-1629 Filed July 24, 2019 TERRY TILTON, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. H.J. HEINZ COMPANY and LIBERTY MUTUAL INS. CO., Respondents-Appellants. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge. An employer and its workers’ compensation insurance carrier a

472 F.Supp.2d 1183 (2007) COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. No. 06CV2377IEG(NLS). United States District Court, S.D. California. January 24, 2007. *1184 *1185 *1186 Paul A. Hilding, Hilding Law Firm, Sa

12‐2996‐cv (L) Donachie v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. et al. In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit ________ AUGUST TERM 2013 Nos. 12‐2996‐cv (Lead), 12‐3031 (XAP) JOHN J. DONACHIE, Plaintiff‐AppelleeCross‐Appellant

OPINION Tracy Christopher, Justice In this insurance-coverage dispute, the trial court granted appellee Exxon Mobil Corporation’s traditional motion for partial summary judgment, holding that a contractor’s primary and excess commercial general liability policies provided additional-insured coverage to Exxon for personal-injury claims arising out of the

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RALPH B. KIRSCHER, Bankruptcy Judge. On January 6, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an adversary proceeding complaint against the named Defendants. Defendants filed an answer, doc. no. 6 on April 5, 2006. On September 25, 2006, Plaintiffs, M. Penny Leatzow, of Kalispell, Montana, filed an amended complaint. On November 7, 2006, Defendants, represented by Charles E. Hansberry, filed a motion for

OPINION RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Richard Kalish, who suffers from a heart condition and depression, began receiving disability benefits under a group insurance plan (the Plan) issued to his employer by Liberty Mutual/Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston. The benefits ended, however, when Liberty determined that Kalish was no longer disabled und

ENTRY ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The motions are fully briefed, and the Court, being duly advised, DENIES the Defendants’ motion and GRANTS the *980Plaintiffs motion for the reasons and to the extent set f

(Judge Kane ) Before the Court is Defendant Matthew T. Decker ("Defendant")'s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 28.) For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion. I. BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background This action finds its origins in the April 4, 2015 Easter egg hunt at the Wesley United Methodist Church in Marysville, Pennsylv

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 05a0352p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellant, - RICHARD KALISH,

OPINION OF THE COURT MANSMANN, Circuit Judge. The dispute in this ease concerns an insurance company’s duty of good faith in conducting a defense and settlement negotiations on behalf of its insured. We conclude that New York law governed this dispute brought by a Connecticut excess insurer against a Massachusetts primary insurer, alleging a breach of th

526 So.2d 66 (1988) LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Frank CHAMBERS and Brunetta Chambers, His Wife, Respondents. No. 71337. Supreme Court of Florida. June 9, 1988. *67 Arnold R. Ginsberg of Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, and Miller, Hodges, Kagan & Chait, Miami, for petitioner. Gene Flinn of the Law Off