Cases

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thur-ston County, No. 13-2-01135-0, Gary R. Tabor, J., entered December 5, 2014. Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Schindler, J., concurred in by Becker and Trickey, JJ.

850 A.2d 428 (2004) 157 Md. App. 287 Penelope KING et vir. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. No. 1541, Sept. Term, 2003. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. June 4, 2004. *429 Andre' R. Weitzman of Baltimore, for appellant. Michael J. Budow (Richard E. Schimel, Laura B. Jaco

—-Mikoll, J. P. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Mycek, J.), entered August 1, 1994 in Saratoga County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries on May 11, 1988 as the result of an automobile accident. Plaintiff was then insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by defendant and was paid certain no-fault bene

Mahoney, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Brown, J.), entered October 27, 1992 in Saratoga County, which granted defendant’s motion to quash a subpoena to depose a nonparty witness. In this action against defendant to recover no-fault benefits, plaintiff issued a subpoena to depose the physician who performed an independent medical examination of her at defendant’s request. Defendant moved to quash t

Quillian, Presiding Judge. Plaintiff-appellees King, surviving husband and minor children of a deceased killed in a motor vehicle accident, appeal the grant of, summary judgment to defendant-appellee insurance company (State Farm) in an action to recover maximum personal injury protection (PIP) coverage on a no-fault auto insurance policy. Appellant King had an auto insurance policy with State Farm in 197

OPINION SCHELLHAS, Judge. Appellant challenges the district court’s rule 12.02(e) dismissal of his claim for un-derinsured motorist benefits based on his failure, ¡to, first recover from the underin-sured tortfeasor through adjudication or settlement. We affirm. . . FACTS1 In April 2012, appellant Michael Ron-ning suffered permanent injuries

MEMORANDUM STENGEL, District Judge. An injured driver brings this diversity action against her automobile insurer based on a partial denial of her underin-sured motorist benefits. She asserts a breach of contract claim along with a bad faith claim under Pennsylvania law. The insurer moves to dismiss the bad faith claim under Rule 12(b)(6). I will deny this motion and allow the claim to proceed

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellants — Body by Cook, Inc. and its owner, Robert Cook — filed a lawsuit in federal district court alleging various civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, § 1985, and Title VII, as well as several related state-law claims. Defendants-Appellees are several national insurance companies — State Farm Mutual Automobile Insura

OPINION AND ORDER DAVID BRAMLETTE, District Judge. Before this Court are the Motions for Summary Judgment of Defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company [docket entry no. 183] and J. Paul Clinton and Stokes & Clinton, P.C. (the “Clinton Defendants”) [docket entry no. 181]. Having carefully considered the Motions, responses thereto, and applicable statutory and case law, the Co

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2002, which, upon reargument and renewal, adhered to the prior order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, dated August 21, 2001, but entered March 20, 2002, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate a default judgment granting a stay of the arbitration sought by respondent pursuant to an uninsured motorist endorsement, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Ap

MEMORANDUM A. RICHARD CAPUTO, District Judge. Presently before the Court are Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 12 and 14.) For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Motion will be granted and Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion will be denied. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background The facts in the cas

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

OPINION ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice. Tammy Pepper suffered serious injuries in a single-vehicle accident when she was struck by a pickup truck owned by her sister and driven by her stepfather. Following the accident, Pepper sought insurance benefits under three policies. First, Pepper sought and recovered liability benefits from her sister’s insurer. Second, Pepper sought and recovered liability benefits f

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

30 So.3d 1260 (2010) Curtis BURNETT, Jr., Appellant v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE and Lee C. Franklin, Appellees. No. 2008-CA-01909-COA. Court of Appeals of Mississippi. March 16, 2010. *1261 R. Bradley Best, Tiffany Hatcher Smith, Joshua Paul Moore, Oxford, attorneys for appellant. John A. Banahan, Scott Corle

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 878 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 879 OPINION I. INTRODUCTION The present appeal is from a judgment entered after the trial

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 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

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NETWORK SIGNATURES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ______________________ 2012-1492 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Cali

62 So.3d 989 (2010) STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant v. Nancy MOYER, Appellee. No. 2009-CA-01534-COA. Court of Appeals of Mississippi. December 14, 2010. Rehearing Denied March 8, 2011. Certiorari Denied June 9, 2011. H. Scot Spragins, Goodloe Tankersley Lewis, Oxford, attorneys for appellant. John B.