Cases

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DARRYL A. VACHON, Appellant, v. THE TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. 2D2023-2674 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emily A. Peacock, Judge. Tracy Raffles Gunn of Gunn A

Gerald Austin McHugh, United States District Judge This case involves a claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits. Plaintiff Michelle Barnard has a personal automobile policy with Defendant Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company. Two vehicles are insured under the policy, creating the option to "stack" benefits, which would aggregate the limits of UIM coverage on both vehicles in the event of a claim, effectively doubling

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO ANNETTE VOGELSANG, ) ED109377 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County v. ) 18SL-CC02099

FIFTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, C. J., RICKMAN, P. J., and SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE PHIPPS NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules DEADLINES ARE NO LONGER TOLLED IN THIS COURT. A

USCA11 Case: 20-12765 Date Filed: 12/14/2021 Page: 1 of 19 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-12765 ____________________ DARRYL A. VACHON, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COM

OPINION OF THE COURT Katherine A. Levine, J. This case raises anew the seemingly irreconcilable tensions that arise from treating an examination before trial (EUO) as *285both a condition precedent to coverage and as part of the verification procedures. It appears that no court has ruled upon whether an insurance company can issue a denial beyond t

MEMORANDUM OPINION CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER, United States District Judge Awoke Gebretsadike sought coverage from his insurance company for medical costs, lost wages, and other expenses stemming from a car accident with a hit- and-run driver. The insurance company— Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company — denied the claim, contending that

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AWOKE GEBRETSADIKE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1: 14-cv-02059 (CRC) THE TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Awoke Gebretsadike sought coverage from his insurance company for medical costs, lost wag

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by email at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet

HUNSTEIN, Justice. In this dispute over recovery under an uninsured motorist (UM) insurance policy, we granted certiorari to consider the burden of proof on summary judgment as between the insured plaintiff and the UM carrier, where the UM carrier has denied coverage based on a claim that the at-fault driver was not “uninsured” as defined in the UM policy because the driver’s li

297 Ga. 174 FINAL COPY S14G1878. TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CASTELLANOS. HUNSTEIN, Justice. In this dispute over recovery under an uninsured motorist (UM) insurance policy, we granted certiorari to consider the burden of proof on summary judgment as between the insured plaintiff and the UM carrier, where the UM carrier has denied coverage based on a claim that the at-fault driver was not “uninsured” as defined in the UM policy becaus

McMlLLlAN, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent to the majority’s opinion in this case because I believe it ignores long-standing principles of Georgia law and the language of the insurance policy at issue to improperly shift the burden to Travelers to prove Castellanos’s claim. The primary issue raised on appeal is the legal question of whether the insured seeking UM coverage or the UM

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas JUDGMENT No. 04-17-00814-CV Terry GRANGER, Appellant v. THE TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE CO., Appellee From the

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-17-00814-CV Terry GRANGER, Appellant v. THE TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE CO., Appellee

DISSENTING OPINION BY SHOGAN, J.: .1 respectfully dissent from the Majority's decision in this case and would reverse the order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company (“Travelers”) and denying summary judgment to Appellant, Christopher Toner. On December 2, 2011, twenty-one-yearr old Appellant, a student at Penn State, was a front se

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 23, 2018 No. 04-17-00814-CV Terry GRANGER, Appellant v. THE TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INS. CO., Appellees Fro

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-2454 ___________________________ Priscilla Croxdale; Ralph Croxdale Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company

2025 IL App (1st) 240276 No. 1-24-0276 SIXTH DIVISION November 21, 2025 ____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE CO

JUDGMENT Per Curiam This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court in favor of appellee, entered on September 22, 2016, be affirmed. The district court c

MEMORANDUM OPINION Rufe, J. I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is the motion for summary judgment of Plaintiff The Travelers Home And Marine Insurance Company (“Travelers”), which seeks a declaration that it does not have a duty under a homeowner’s Policy to defend or indemnify Defendants Brian, Heather, and Tristan Stahley in a state action. For the reasons that follow, the motion will