Cases

646 F.Supp. 973 (1986) Byron GROFF and Janiel Groff, h/w v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY. Civ. A. No. 86-1668. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. October 24, 1986. *974 Richard E. Genter, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs. Earl Britt, John McGrath, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants. ME

741 F.Supp. 541 (1990) Bette L. GROFF, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Eric Zimmerman, Deceased, and in her own right, Plaintiff, v. The CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 89-3250. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. June 29, 1990. *542 Kent D. Mikus, Lancaster, Pa., for plaintiff. Fr

JUSTICE MCKINNON delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Fire Insurance Exchange (FIE) appeals from an order issued by the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, granting summary judgment in favor of Jake Weitzel (Weitzel). This case arises out of a declaratory judgment action to determine whether

BROCK, C.J. The plaintiff, Lawrence M. Hoepp, filed a declaratory judgment action to determine coverage under a personal liability umbrella policy issued by the defendant, State Farm Insurance Company. He appeals the decision of the Superior Court (Groff, J.), denying coverage under the policy’s “business operations” exclusion. We reverse. The plaintiff and John Nightingale became acquainted as membe

DALIANIS, J. The plaintiff, Forbes Farm Partnership, appeals from the Superior Court’s (Smith, J.) order granting the summary judgment motion of the defendant, Farm Family Mutual Insurance Company, on the ground that the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action is barred by a provision in the parties’ insurance contract requiring any action to be brought within one year after the loss. We affirm. The

Hillman, J. INTRODUCTION The plaintiff brought this action alleging breach of the defendant’s duty to defend and indemnify its insured under a homeowner’s policy. This matter is before the court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 56. Also before the court is the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on Counts I and II of the complaint. For the reasons set forth below

King, J. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Steven Kalus (Mr. Kalus) and defendant Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (Merrimack) filed cross motions for summary judgment. Counsel waived their right to a hearing on the motions and submitted the case on the briefs and supporting documents. The undisputed facts as taken from the summary judgment record are as follows. Plaintiffs wife, Kelly Kalus (Mr

McGOVERN, J., — Plaintiff, National Union Fire Insurance Company, appeals from this court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants, George and Barbara Devenny, and against the plaintiff and the defendant, IREX Corporation, necessitating this opinion.1 National filed this litigation seeking a declaratory judgment that no uninsured motorist coverage existed pursuan

OPINION OF THE COURT GREENBERG, Circuit Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Nathan and Patricia Rubin, who are husband and wife, appeal from an order in these consolidated diversity of citizenship cases granting summary judgment to Electric Insurance Company and declaring that Electric is not obligated to provide coverage under a personal excess

97 B.R. 220 (1989) In re AMATEX CORPORATION, formerly known as American Asbestos Textile Corporation, Debtor. AMATEX CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. The AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Defendant. AMATEX CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. STONEWALL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. AMATEX CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. INTERSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. AMATEX CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. BELLEFONTE INSURANCE COMP

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge. The Lapiduses have a frame stucco' house built about 1954 on a hillside in the Los Angeles area. Due to movement of *288 the soil in the dirt fill on which the house rests, the house is cracking up badly.

Lynch, J. Cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court (Platkin, J.), entered September 4, 2013 in Albany County, which, among other things, partially granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. *1251 In December 2011, plaintiff commenced this action in its capacity

OPINION BRAMMER, Judge. ¶ 1 Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc. (Del Monte) appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Dayka & Haekett, LLC (D & H) on its claims of lien priority and conversion regarding the proceeds from the sale of Rolando Castelo de la Rosa and Maria Olivia Aguirre Ramos’s (growers) 2008 table

79 Cal.Rptr.2d 326 (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 808 Laurence W. PETERS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FIREMEN'S INSURANCE COMPANY of Newark, New Jersey, Defendant and Respondent. No. B119313. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two. October 6, 1998. Michael J.T. O'Brien, Covina, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Porter, Groff & Lodwick, A

Beasley, Judge. On Friday, January 28, 1994, around mid-day, defendant Pinkiney James was driving his employer’s tractor-trailer northbound on Interstate 85 in heavy traffic when he swerved and his truck jackknifed and hit the concrete barrier separating the northbound and southbound lanes. Plaintiffs Joyce and Emmett Lovelady, who were traveling in the second lane to the right of the barrier, collided wi

706 N.E.2d 208 (1999) GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and Hendrickson Motor Sales, Inc., Appellants-Defendants, v. Richard HUGHES and Shirley Hughes, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Ruth Bilyeu, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 09A02-9803-CV-235. Court of Appeals of Indiana. February 17, 1999. *209 Lawrence M. Hansen, Bru

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR COURT-DIRECTED SERVICE OF PROCESS HORNBY, Chief Judge. The plaintiffs have moved for court-directed service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). They have been unsuccessful in their own attempts to serve the defendant Jonathan Hay, an American who, they assert, resides in Russia. Specifically, the plaintiffs have requested court-dir

ANDERSON, P.J. The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (Aetna), Manitowoc Clinic, Inc. and Manitowoc Clinic, S.C. appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Kossuth Mutual Insurance Company (Kossuth), the third party defendant-respondent. Aetna maintains that the family exclusion clause in the Rabases' insurance policy only applies to direct action claims and therefore does not apply to this indirect claim for contribution. Becau

445 S.E.2d 249 (1994) 191 W.Va. 308 James B. RICH, III, as Guardian of Ray A. Watson, III, Ward, a Minor, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, and Rhea A. Watson, Defendants Below, Appellees. No. 22058. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted May 3, 1994. Decided May 31, 1994.</