Cases

By Judge John W. Brown This matter arises from an automobile accident that occurred on March 12, 2011, and the subsequent trial. At the time of the accident, Austin, the plaintiff in the instant matter, was insured by State Farm. The plaintiff maintains that he was covered by three State Farm insurance policies, each in the.amount of $100,000. The case went to trial, and a jury returned a verdict of $400,000

MURDOCK, Justice (dissenting). The Court today affirms a decision of the trial court that relies on this Court’s opinion in Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Austin, 34 So.3d 1238 (Ala.2009), to hold that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company owes nothing to its insureds, Walter George Austin and Charlene Austin, in relation to a judgment obtained by the Austins against a third-party t

PER CURIAM. In this sinkhole case, Austin & Laurato, P.A. (“Law Firm”) appeals the final judgment on entitlement to attorney’s fees that the trial court entered in favor of State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”) as a sanction for filing a frivolous complaint under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (2012). The final judgment imposed attorney’s fees jointly and severally against Law F

957 So.2d 178 (2007) Kevin and Wayannita AUSTIN, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Daughter, Andrinika Austin v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 2007-C-0761. Supreme Court of Louisiana. June 1, 2007. In re Austin, Kevin et al.; Austin, Wayannita;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Cour

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay certain no-fault insurance benefits, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), entered February 29, 2016, which denied its motion to extend its time to answer, or in the alternative, to compel the plaintiff to accept the untimely answer. Ordered that the order is aff

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas August 22, 2018 No. 04-18-00223-CV Brittany RETLEDGE and Arnold LaMotte, Appellants v. STATE FARM COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS and Austin Riley,

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas June 28, 2018 No. 04-18-00223-CV Brittany RETLEDGE and Arnold LaMotte, Appellants v. STATE FARM COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS and Austin Riley,

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-18-00223-CV Brittany RETLEDGE and Arnold LaMotte, Appellants v. STATE FARM COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS and Austin Ril

625 N.W.2d 213 (2001) 261 Neb. 697 Vicki AUSTIN, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. S-99-1239. Supreme Court of Nebraska. May 4, 2001. *215 Tiffany N. Floth and Joseph B. Muller, Omaha, of Law Offices of Ronald J. Palagi, P.C., for appellant. Mark C. Laughlin

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-23-00822-CV In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company has filed an agreed motion to lift this Court’s prior abatement and to dismiss this petition for writ of mandamus, stating tha

OPINION AND ORDER Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge Before the .Court is plaintiff State Farm Automobile Insurance Co.’s (“State Farm”) motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 41). Defendant Ralph Matarazzo has responded in opposition to the motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 46). Defendant Grant Long, Jr. has not responded; a default was previously entered against Mr. Long in this matter (

Sykes, Circuit Judge. *993 Rick Ochoa and Irene Anderson hold participating life-insurance policies from State Farm Life Insurance Company and Country Life Insurance Company respectively. The policies guarantee policyholders annual dividends from their insurers' surpluses, but the insurers

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-23-00822-CV In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM The parties filed a joint motion to abate this original proceeding pending a decision by the Supreme Court in a case the parties say raises the same issue as in this

CHUTZ, J. 12This -is an appeal from a summary judgment dismissing plaintiff-appellant, James A. Ritchey’s (Mr. Ritchey), personal injury suit against defendants-appellees, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) and Dawn Bonvil-lain (Ms. Bonvillain). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

OPINION Melissa Goodwin, Justice This appeal arises from a suit brought by Jerry C. Johnson seeking declarations construing the terms of two insurance policies following an automobile accident in which Jerry’s son, Jacob, a minor at the time, was injured while Jerry was driving.1 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 37.001-011. Jerry sued State Farm Mutual

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents two distinct questions regarding the taxation of insurance companies. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company has appealed from two rulings of the United States Tax Court that were part of the same case. One ruling concerns the tax treatment of bad-faith punitive damage awards that have not yet been paid. The other concerns the

826 F.Supp.2d 922 (2011) Boris ELTSEFON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Defendant. Case No. 1:11cv991. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. November 16, 2011. *923 Andrei Jacob Kublan, Kublan & Austin PLC, Falls Church, VA, for Plaintiffs. Theodore Ira Br

486 N.W.2d 457 (1992) Sandor AUSTIN, Respondent, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. No. CX-91-2561. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. June 16, 1992. Review Denied August 4, 1992. *458 Kenneth N. Potts, Wayzata, for respondent. Steven L. Viltoft, La Bore & Giuliani, Ltd., Hopkins

O’Donnell, J. {¶ 1} The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, has certified the following question of state law for our resolution: “Does Ohio Revised Code Section 3937.18, as amended in 2001 by S.B. 97 (effective October 31, 2001), permit insurers to include an express limitation of coverage in an automobile insurance policy that prec

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