Cases

66 F.3d 309 Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.v.Liberty Mutual Ins. NO. 95-7126 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Sept 01, 1995 Appeal From: S.D.N.Y. 91-cv-2477 1 AFFIRMED.

49 So.3d 17 (2010) Vanessa EMERY and Nedra Wrights v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, T & T Seafood, Inc., Joshua Tourere, Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company. No. 2010 CA 0327. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. September 10, 2010. *18 David J. Schex

MEMORANDUM ** James Henderson Sanders appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion for relief from the judgment dismissing his adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158. We consider the decision of the bankruptcy court independently and review for abuse of discretion the determination to deny relief un

HANS J. LILJEBERG, Judge. 1 ¡^Plaintiffs, Jessica Portillo and Francisco Romero on behalf of the minor child Emely Romero, appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, Walker Volkswagen, Inc. and Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company d/b/a Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. We affirm. Factual & Procedural History Plaintiffs instituted the instant action ag

NO. 12-20-00220-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: § PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR § MEMORANDUM OPINION

#29000-a-PJD 2021 S.D. 35 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA **** In the Matter of the CERTIFICATION OF A QUESTION OF LAW FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA, CENTRAL DIVISION, Pursuant to the Provisions of SDCL 15-24A-1, and Concerning Federal Action Civ. 3:18-cv-03015-RAL, Titled as Follows:

Reversed and Rendered and Majority Opinion and Dissenting Opinion filed May 14, 2024. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-22-00450-CV PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant V. ARTEMIZ FREEMAN, Appellee On Appeal from the 113th District Court Harris County, Texas

In an action to recover uninsured motorist benefits under an insurance policy with limits of coverage in the amount of $300,000, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sweeney, J.), dated August 16, 2013, as granted his motion for summary judgment on the complaint only to the extent of determining that he is entitled to coverage from the defendant for uninsured motorist

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE SAM GLASSCOCK III STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE VICE CHANCELLOR 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947 Date Submitted: May 1, 2023 Date Decide

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Thomas B. Russell, Senior Judge, United States District Court This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (DN 67). Plaintiff has responded (DN 69), and Defendant has replied (DN 74), This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND

525 F.Supp.2d 993 (2007) LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Sears, Roebuck and Company, Arin Bovay, Debra Wathen, Mark Triezenberg, Mary Rawson, Patricia Clark, Richard Terrell Gore, and Mary Rodriguez, Defendants. No. 06 C 6689. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. July 26, 2007.

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 18-P-1288 Appeals Court ROBERT CHIULLI vs. LIBERT

JUSTICE KILBRIDE, dissenting: The majority concludes the food delivery (“pizza”) exclusion in Progressive’s policy was not void and does not violate this state’s mandatory liability insurance law. 215 Ill. 2d at 140. Accordingly, Progressive may enforce its exclusion even as applied to the mandatory minimum $20,000/40,000 coverage

15-1426-cv Nick’s Garage, Inc. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 August Term, 2016 5 6 (Argued: September 19, 2016 Decided: November 8, 2017) 7 8 Docket No. 15‐1426‐cv 9 _____________________________________ 10

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge. Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (“Defendant”) moves to dismiss plaintiff Peter Olney’s (“Plaintiff’) putative class-action Complaint on multiple grounds pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, to strike the class action allegations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civ

NUMBER 13-21-00209-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. ANSELMO M. CALTZONSING, Appellee. On appeal from the 377th District Court

LEVAL, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff, Nick’s Garage, Inc. (“Garage” or “Plaintiff’), appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court'for the Northern District of New York (D’Agosti-no, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and related entities (collectively, the “Insurer”).1 Garage, an automob

Opinion issued October 5, 2017 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-17-00363-CV ——————————— IN RE LIBERTY COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-17-00684-CV Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant v. Edwin Emenike, Appellee FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C-1-CV-16-002471, HONORABLE TODD T. WONG, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered November 1, 2012, which, upon renewal, granted the motion of respondents Surujdat Mohabir and Khamni Mohabir to vacate a prior order of the same court and Justice, entered on or about July 20, 2011, which permanently stayed the subject arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the order entered on or about July 20, 2011, reinstated.