Cases

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE GLENN CARPENTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) C.A. No.: N23C-06-081 FJJ v. ) LIBERTY MUTUAL ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Defendants.

PER CURIAM: We allowed this interlocutory appeal that asks how the Supreme Court of Mississippi would interpret the subrogation waiver in a common form contracting agreement. The question has split courts nationwide. Because of the closeness and importance of this question, we certify again, this time to the state supreme court so that it can answer the difficult question for itself.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge WIDENER wrote the opinion, in which Judge DUNCAN and Senior Judge • MICHAEL concurred. WIDENER, Circuit Judge: This appeal concerns insurers’ liability for asbestos-related bodily injuries. The intervenors appeal from the district court’s decision adopting what is called the pro-rata rule of Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co.,

OPINION J. WOODFIN JONES, Chief Justice. The City of Austin d/b/a Austin Energy (“the City”) appeals the trial court’s denial of its Rule 91a motion to dismiss inverse-condemnation claims and common-law tort claims asserted against it by appellees Liberty Mutual Insurance; Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana; Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America; Travelers Lloyds of Texas Insurance C

OPINION AND ORDER James P. Jones, United States District Judge In this diversity action seeking interpretation of the terms of commercial liability insurance policies, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Liberty Insurance Corporation (collectively, “Liberty Mutual”) seek a declaration that they have neither a duty to defend nor a duty to indemnify Bizzack Construction, LLC, Bizzack, Inc., and Brett Co

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge: In this diversity case, the Appellant, Paul M. Graham (“Graham”), appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment declaring that Appellee, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty”), has no duty to defend or indemnify him under the omnibus clause of the insurance policy issued by Liberty to Graham’s employer, Eagle Contracting, L.P. (“Eag

2008 MT 353 RICHARD A. SIEBKEN, Petitioner and Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Respondent and Appellee. No. DA 08-0033. Supreme Court of Montana. Submitted on Briefs: August 27, 2008. Decided: October 21, 2008. For Appellant: Bernard J. Everett, Attorney at Law; Anaconda, Montana For Appellee: Larry W. Jones, Attorney at Law; Miss

291 F.3d 243 Timothy RUPERT, Appellantv.LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY No. 00-3214. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued on October 24, 2000. Opinion Filed: May 16, 2002. James D. Belliveau (Argued), Edgar Snyder & Associates, LLC, Pittsburgh, PA, Counsel for Appellan

PER CURIAM: * The court has carefully reviewed this appeal in light of the briefs, oral arguments, and pertinent parts of the record. Having done so, we find no reversible error of law or fact and therefore AFFIRM *342for essentially the reasons stated by the trial court. AFFIRMED.

SUMMARY ORDER Anthony J. Ross, pro se, appeals from a district court judgment denying his motion to remand to state court and dismissing his complaint. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to remand to state court. See Whitaker v. Am. Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196, 201 (2d Cir. 2001). Any state cause of action that “duplicates, supplements, or supplants” the civil enforcement remedies of the Emplo

ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, JR„ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the following motions: (1) Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) and Defendants’ Response (Doe. 30); (2) Defendants’ First Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24), Plaintiffs Response (Doc. 29), and Defendants’ Reply (Doc. 34);- and (3) Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) and Plaint

434 F.Supp.2d 483 (2006) ELLIOTT COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, v. United Technologies Corporation, et al., Third Party Defendants. No. 1:05 CV 1387. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. May 10, 2006. *484 *485</

Memorandum of Opinion and Order GAUGHAN, District Judge. INTRODUCTION Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Elliott Company’s Motion for Rule 59 Reconsideration and in the Alternative to Certify Pursuant to Rule 54(b) or to Amend the May 10, 2006 Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). (Doc. 51). The Elliott Company (“Elliott”) seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Ma

250 F.Supp.2d 1197 (2003) TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Defendants. No. 99-766-PHX-ROS. United States District Court, D. Arizona. January 16, 2003. *1198 Mark A. Sandberg, R. Douglas Dalton, Dalton PLC, Phoenix, AZ, Sandberg Wuestenfeld & Corey, A

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL, United States District Judge On October 28, 2016, Defendants filed a supplemental brief in support of their mo*1004tion for summary judgment following remand. (Dkt. No. 296.) On November 10, 2016, Plaintiffs 'filed a supplemen

433 B.R. 62 (2010) In re Lynn CITRON and Jeffrey Citron, Debtors. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as Fiduciary for the Bankruptcy Estate of Lynn Citron and Jeffrey Citron, Plaintiff, v. The State of New York, Bing Li and the Law Offices of Bing Li, LLC, and Frank Paone, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 08-71442-ast. Adversary No. 09-08126-ast. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York.

1JONES, Judge. Defendant/Appellant, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, appeals the judgment of the city court in favor of Plaintiffs/Ap-pellees, Jack and Rose Rich, awarding them $8,591.24. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the city court. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs/Appellees, Jack Rich husband of'and Rose Rich (hereinafter “the Rich

428 B.R. 562 (2010) In re Lynn CITRON and Jeffrey Citron, Debtors. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as Fiduciary for the Bankruptcy Estate of Lynn Citron and Jeffrey Citron, Plaintiff, v. The State of New York, Bing Li and The Law Offices of Bing Li, LLC, and Frank Paone, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 08-71442-ast. Adversary No. 09-08126-ast. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York.

AMENDED ORDER SILVER, District Judge. Background On August 7, 1995, Stephanie Yurick (‘Yurick”) was seriously injured in an automobile accident with a Tandy Corporation (“Tandy”) truck. Tandy maintained primary automobile liability insurance from Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Defendant”) in the amount of $5 million and excess insurance from Transamerica Insuranc

FULMER, Judge. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appeals from a final judgment that awarded attorney’s fees to Wendy Coxhead, Esq., former counsel of the' plaintiff, Patricia Holbrook. We reverse the award of attorney’s fees because, pursuant to Faro v. Romani, 641 So.2d 69 (Fla.1994), Coxhead abandoned her right to compensation when she withdrew from the representation of Holbrook. In September 1997, Co