Cases

KUHN, J. |2The issue presented in this appeal is the validity of an uninsured/underinsured motorist bodily injury coverage form (“UM coverage form”), which purports to waive uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM”) coverage, but bears the binder number on the application instead of a policy number.1 The trial court found that defendant, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”), had not established th

CONERY, Judge. |, Defendant-Relator, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Allstate), seeks supervisory writs from the judgment of the Twelfth Judicial District Court, Parish of Avoyelles, the Honorable Kerry Spruill presiding, which denied Allstate’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of insurance coverage. For the following reasons, Allstate’s writ is granted and made peremptor

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2022 Term FILED _______________ November 17, 2022 No. 21-0603 released at 3:00 p.m. EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (Dkt. No. 281) AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (Dkt. No. 282) SUZANNE H. SEGAL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION On April 21, 2014, Plaintiffs Carlos Madrigal (“Madrigal”), Richard Tang and Anna Tang (the “Tangs”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit in state court

¶1 Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company sought discretionary review of the trial court’s denial of a protection order to limit the scope of discovery in a bad faith lawsuit. Allstate sought to limit discovery of its claim manuals, training manual, claim bulletins, and the “McKinsey documents.” We granted discretionary review and hold that Allstate did not show specific prejudice or harm for any of the documents; thus, it did not establish good

211 P.3d 430 (2009) LOC THIEN TRUONG, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. No. 61202-6-I. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. July 13, 2009. *431 Ronald Lewis Unger, Buckley & Associates PS Inc., Seattle, WA, Derek P. Radtke, Phillips & Webster, Woodinville, WA, for Appellant

OPINION FISHER, Circuit Judge: Florencio Pacleb filed a class action complaint, against Allstate Insurance Company, alleging he received unsolicited automated telephone calls to his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Taking a cue from a recent Supreme Court case, Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, — U

Dwyer, J. ¶1 Michelle T. Tribble was injured by an uninsured motorist and sought uninsured motorist (UIM) benefits from her insurer, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company. Pursuant to a provision of the insurance policy, which did not provide for private arbitration, Tribble commenced an action against Allstate in the King County Superior Court. The case was submitted to mandatory arbitration and the arbitrator awarded

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Nettles v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2012 IL App (1st) 102247 Appellate Court SHELENE A. NETTLES and ED CZARNECKI, Individually, and on Caption Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross- Appellees, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporati

327 S.W.3d 592 (2010) James E. REEVES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. No. SD 30246. Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One. December 14, 2010. *593 Beth C. Boggs, H. Edward Ryals, Boggs, Avellino, Lach & Boggs, L.L.C., St. Louis, MO, for appellant. James E.

Becker, J. ¶1 A claimant who receives personal injury protection benefits after being involved in a car accident must reimburse his insurer after he has been fully compensated for actual losses suffered. Settling with the tortfeasor is evidence of full compensation, and the claimant cannot defeat the insurer’s right to reimbursement with conclusory allegations that he settled for less than his actual damages because he was part

989 A.2d 733 (2010) 2010 ME 20 Patricia Ruth BEAL v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY. Docket: Was-09-205. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued: September 16, 2009. Decided: March 11, 2010. *735 Arthur J. Greif, Esq. (orally), Julie D. Farr, Esq., Gilbert & Greif, P.A., Bangor, ME, for Pa

204 P.3d 944 (2009) Colleen McCALLUM, a single person, Respondent, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurer, Appellant. No. 36624-0-II. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2. March 31, 2009. *946 Michael John Fisher, Rush Hannula Harkins & Kyler LLP, Tacoma, WA, Karen Kathryn Koehler, Stritm

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOB CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE RELEASE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge. *331I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND . CO A. Allstate’s Agency Programs Prior to 1999. CO 1. The NO A Program . CO 2. R830 and R1500 Contracts. CO

J.M. Johnson, J. ¶52 (dissenting) — Instead of attending an examination under oath (EUO) as Allstate Insurance Company requested, and the policy provides, to process his suspect claim, John Staples engaged in delay tactics for months. Only after Allstate ultimately denied his claim did Staples attempt to schedule the EUO, and only on the condition that Allstate agree to extend the time under which Staples could bring suit. Despite

262 S.W.3d 655 (2008) Edward JOHNSON and Virginia Johnson, Respondents, and Wayne Davis, Jr., Respondent, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. No. WD 68169. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. July 29, 2008. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied September 2, 2008. *658 Curtis

*439JUSTICE McKINNON, dissenting. ¶102 I dissent from the Court’s decision. As explained below, the case the Court decides today is not the case that was presented to us. This class action, as argued by Jacobsen and certified by the District Court, is one for declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Before the court are Defendant Allstate Insurance Company’s (“Allstate”) three motions for partial summary judgment against Plaintiff Denise D. Dees. (1/31/13 Mot. (Dkt. #36); 2/7/13 Mot. (Dkt. #40); 2/12/13 Mot. (Dkt. #45).)1 Ms. Dees opposes all three mo

206 P.3d 572 (2009) ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Deborah Ann FACKETT, Respondent. No. 49884. Supreme Court of Nevada. April 30, 2009. *573 Prince & Keating and Dennis M. Prince and Douglas J. Duesman, Las Vegas, for Appellant. Rogers, Mastrangelo, Carvalho & Mitchell and Daniel E. Carvalho and Charles A. Michalek

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1 SIDNEY I. SCHENKIER, United States Magistrate Judge. Katherine Puffer (“plaintiff’ or “Ms. Puffer”) filed this suit on behalf of herself and a putative class alleging that Allstate Insur-*455anee Company (“Allstate”) has carried out a nationwide pattern or practice of