Cases

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, District Judge. Does a homeowners insurance policy’s exclusion from coverage apply? That is the question in this declaratory judgment case. For the reasons that follow, the question is answered in the affirmative. I A Since 1997, Defendant Kelly McClintic has o

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED BAKER FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC, LLC A/A/O HAHN DINH, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D21-3137 LT Case No. 20

Jesse J. Murphy, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. Misc. No. 5, September Term 2021 Administrative Authority of Chief Judge – Emergency Powers of Chief Judge. Under the Maryland Constitution, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals is the administrative head of the Judicial Branch of the Maryland State government. In the exercise of its rulemaking authority with respect to administration of, and practice and procedure in, the State courts, the Court of Appeals has adopted rules to guide

Jesse J. Murphy, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. Misc. No. 5, September Term 2021 Administrative Authority of Chief Judge – Emergency Powers of Chief Judge. Under the Maryland Constitution, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals is the administrative head of the Judicial Branch of the Maryland State government. In the exercise of its rulemaking authority with respect to administration of, and practice and procedure in, the State courts, the Court of Appeals has adopted rules to guide

STOWERS, Chief Justice. I. INTRODUCTION While sitting on his motorcycle at a stop light, Chad Hahn was thrown backwards when Franklin Townsend's car failed to stop in time and struck the motorcycle. During settlement negotiations in the tort suit that followed, Hahn sought payment under Townsend's underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance policy.

355 F.Supp.2d 104 (2004) MINNESOTA LAWYERS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, v. Gilbert HAHN, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 04-0640(JDB). United States District Court, District of Columbia. December 9, 2004. *106 J. Jonathan Schraub, Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, McLean, VA, for Plaintiff. Mark B. Sandground, Sandgrou

646 F.Supp.2d 51 (2009) LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., as subrogee of Schnabel Foundation Co., Inc., Plaintiff, v. EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 07-01788 (HHK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 18, 2009. *53 Matthew Wesley Carlson, Thompson, O'Donnell, Markham, Nor

336 Pa. Superior Ct. 329 (1984) 485 A.2d 830 Matthew HAHN and Spotts and Morrow, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and Boston Old Colony Insurance Company. Appeal of LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. Cross Appeal of BOSTON OLD COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued July 31, 1984. Filed December 14, 1984.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., as subrogee of SCHNABEL FOUNDATION CO., INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action 07-01788 (HHK) v. EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Invo

KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: Two insurance companies - Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company ("Liberty Mutual") and Defendant Hamilton Insurance Company ("Hamilton") - are battling over defense costs incurred in a personal injury lawsuit (the "Underlying Action"). That lawsuit, which involved grave injuries to a construction worker, has been resolved, but the allocation of defense costs remains. In particular, Pl

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KAITLIN HAHN, PUBLISHED February 15, 2024 Plaintiff-Appellee,

Read, J. (dissenting). Plaintiff Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. (Hahn) does not contest the amount of the moneys that it *773owes defendants American Zurich Insurance Company and Zurich American Insurance Company (collectively, Zurich) under the various insurance contracts at issue in this case, which called for amounts owed

Peradotto, J. (dissenting in part). I respectfully dissent in part. I cannot agree with the majority that Supreme Court properly determined that defendants’ breach of contract counterclaims for any debt that arose more than six years prior to the commencement of the action are time-barred. Rather, in my view, those counterclaims did not accrue until defendants demanded, and plaintiff refused to pay, premiums and other amounts owe

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 1287 CA 10-00545 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ. HAHN AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY AND ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. THE WOLFORD LAW FIRM LLP, ROCHESTER (MICHAEL R. WOLFORD OF CO

583 A.2d 881 (1990) Gertrude C. DEROSIA, Administratrix of the Estate of Lyman R. Derosia v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 87-584. Supreme Court of Vermont. September 21, 1990. *882 Thomas W. Costello and Ardith L. Baldwin of Thomas W. Costello, P.C., Brattleboro, for plaintiff-appellee. Plante, Richards, Hanley &a;

By JUDGE T. J. MARROW This matter is before the court on demurrer to the motion for judgment and bill of particulars. Plaintiff filed a two-count motion for judgment alleging a breach of an express and an implied contract of employment and wrongful termination of that contract by having been given inadequate notice of termination. Plaintiff claims that his express or implied contract precluded his terminati

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 414 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 415 OPINION {¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants ("plaintiffs"), Michael a

O’Connor, J. {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Motorists Mutual Insurance Company (“Motorists”), appeals from a decision of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals holding former R.C. 3937.18(E)(2) unconstitutional for violating the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions when that statute is read in conjunction with former R.C. 3937.18(J)(1). For the reasons that follow, based largely upon our decision in

[Cite as Hahn v. Farmakis-King, 2026-Ohio-778.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY LINDA S. HAHN, AS ATTORNEY CASE NO. 2025-A-0009 IN FACT FOR ROSEMARY G. FARMAKIS, INCOMPETENT, Civil Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellant, Court of Common Pleas - vs -

Illinois Official Reports Digitally signed by Reporter of Decisions Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of