IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY. v. No CA ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY. v. No CA ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY"

Transcription

1 E-Filed Document Sep :34: CA SCT Pages: 12 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY APPELLANT v. No CA ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLEE CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY S MOTION FOR REHEARING On Appeal from the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi No. A MICHAEL R. MOORE (MSB ) JOHN A. BANAHAN (MSB 1731) BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, PLLC Post Office Drawer 1529 Pascagoula, Mississippi Telephone: (228) Facsimile: (228) michael@bnscb.com john@bnscb.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Appellant, Continental Casualty Company

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY... 1 I. Allstate s arguments in its Motion for Rehearing are a mere repetition of the arguments already considered by the Court II. The arguments raised in Allstate s Motion for Rehearing are unavailing A. Allstate s focus on the instrumentalities involved in the underlying accident is misplaced as Allstate s proposed analysis fails to apply the policies other insurance clauses as required by Mississippi law B. Allstate s reliance on Hill is unpersuasive and unavailing CONCLUSION... 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE... 9 i

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Allstate Ins. Co. v. Chicago Ins. Co., 676 So. 2d 271 (Miss. 1996)... 5 Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Miss., Inc. v. Larson, 485 So. 2d 1071 (Miss. 1986)... 5, 6 Brandau v. State, 662 So. 2d 1051 (Miss. 1995)... 1 EMJ Corp. v. Hudson Specialty Ins. Co., 833 F.3d 544 (5th Cir. Miss. 2016)... 5 Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 907 F. Supp. 234 (S.D. Miss. 1995)... 5 Guidant Mutual Insurance Company v. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, 13 So. 3d 1270 (Miss. 2009)... 4, 5 Hill v. General Insurance Company of America, 456 F. Supp. 2d 757 (N.D. Miss. 2006)... 2, 6, 7 International Service Ins. Co. v. Ballard, 216 So. 2d 535 (Miss. 1968)... 5 Southern Ins. Co. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 830 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. Miss. 2016)... 5 Rules Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure , 2 ii

4 ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY I. Allstate s arguments in its Motion for Rehearing are a mere repetition of the arguments already considered by the Court. The Court should deny Allstate s request for rehearing because Allstate has already raised, and this Court has already considered, the arguments in Allstate s Motion for Rehearing. Pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 40, motions for rehearing are not intended to afford an opportunity for a mere repetition of argument already considered by the court. Miss. R. App. P. 40. Because the Court has already considered the arguments made in Allstate s Motion for Rehearing, the Court should find that Allstate s Motion presents a mere repetition of those arguments and deny the Motion for that reason. Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a) states, in pertinent part, the motion for rehearing is not intended to afford an opportunity for a mere repetition of the argument already considered by the court. Where a party s motion for rehearing is a mere repetition of the argument already considered by the court, the Court may summarily dismiss such argument. See, e.g., Brandau v. State, 662 So. 2d 1051 (Miss. 1995) ( Brandau s propositions I and III are mere repetitions of his original argument presented to this Court for its consideration. Both issues were thoroughly considered, determined to be without merit, and thus, need not be readdressed by this Court. ). Allstate raises two arguments in its Motion for Rehearing. First, Allstate argues that Allstate and Continental should share the loss on a pro rata basis because Mississippi case law has consistently held that the insurer of the owner of the vehicle involved in an accident provides primary coverage. See Mot. for Rehearing at 3. Second, Allstate argues that [p]rinciples of 1

5 equity require that the rule of mutual repugnancy be applied in this case. See Mot. for Rehearing at 7. Allstate previously raised both of these arguments to both the trial court and this Court. As in its Motion for Rehearing, Allstate argued in its Brief of Appellee, [p]ursuant to clear and established Mississippi law, insurance coverage follows the vehicle and coverage on the vehicle involved in an accident is always primary. See Brief of Appellee at 10. This is precisely the same argument Allstate makes in its Motion for Rehearing by claiming that the insurer of the owner of the vehicle involved in an accident provides primary coverage. See Mot. for Rehearing at 3. Similarly, in its Brief of Appellee, Allstate cited Hill v. General Insurance Company, 456 F. Supp. 2d 757 (N.D. Miss. 2006) for the proposition that it seems likely that a pro-rata and escape clause might validly be held to be mutually repugnant as a matter of equity in an appropriate case. See Brief of Appellee at 24. Again, this is the precise argument Allstate raises again in its Motion for Rehearing when it argues, citing Hill, that equity dictates a ruling in favor of Allstate. See Mot. for Rehearing at 7. The arguments raised in Allstate s Motion for Hearing are a mere repetition of arguments raised to, and considered by, this Court. Pursuant to Rule 40, the Court should find that rehearing is not appropriate under such circumstances and, accordingly, deny Allstate s Motion for Rehearing. II. The arguments raised in Allstate s Motion for Rehearing are unavailing. Should the Court find it appropriate to reconsider the arguments submitted in Allstate s Motion for Rehearing, the Court should find that Allstate s arguments fail as a matter of law. First, as argued in Continental s briefs and as noted by the majority, priority of coverage is determined by comparing the other insurance clauses in the Allstate and Continental policies. While this case presents a unique factual situation, no case cited by Allstate supports abandoning 2

6 well-established Mississippi precedent requiring application of the policies other insurance clauses. Second, Allstate s reliance on speculative dicta from the district court in Hill is wholly unpersuasive. The district court s ruling is not binding on this Court and, outside of Allstate s ipse dixit, nothing in that ruling suggests that this case is the appropriate case for finding distinguishable other insurance clauses mutually repugnant. Because the arguments raised in Allstate s Motion for Rehearing are without merit, the Court should deny Allstate s Motion. A. Allstate s focus on the instrumentalities involved in the underlying accident is misplaced as Allstate s proposed analysis fails to apply the policies other insurance clauses as required by Mississippi law. The Court should again reject Allstate s argument which seeks to avoid application of the insurers other insurance clauses. Allstate s argument that Continental provides primary coverage hinges on two sets of alleged facts: (1) that the boat and trailer are named in Continental s policy but not in Allstate s and (2) that the boat was actively in motion at the time of the accident. No case cited by Allstate suggests that either of these considerations are relevant to determining priority of coverage, and the Court should decline to reconsider this issue. With respect to the first item, neither insurer in this case denies that coverage exists under its respective policy, and both insurers contributed to the settlement of Mr. Williams claim. Rather, the issue in this case is determining priority of coverage, and the existence of coverage does not resolve the question of determining priority of coverage. In other words, as both insurers agree that coverage exists under their respective policies, it makes little sense to quibble over which insurer insured which instrumentality. Assuming that priority of coverage could be determined by simply looking at the language in the policies extending coverage (but ignoring the other insurance clauses), Allstate 3

7 would be the sole primary insurer under the facts of this case. The Allstate policy includes the trailer in the definition of insured auto. (C.P.819). The Allstate policy further states that it protects an insured person from liability for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use, loading or unloading of an insured auto. (C.P.823). Pursuant to the Allstate policy, therefore, Allstate insured Mr. Peters from damages arising out of the loading of the trailer. This is precisely what occurred in this case: a component of the trailer struck Mr. Williams in the eye during the loading of the trailer. (C.P ). In contrast to the Allstate policy, Continental only insured the trailer for property damage. (C.P.786). Under Allstate s proposed analysis (which lacks any legal foundation), the Court should find that the Allstate is the sole primary insurer because it is the only insurer that covers damages for bodily injury arising out of the loading of the trailer. Turning to the second part of Allstate s argument that the boat was actively in motion at the time of the accident the Mississippi Supreme Court has explained that priority of coverage cannot be resolved by examining the relative proximity the risk bears to the loss. Guidant Mutual Insurance Company v. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, 13 So. 3d 1270 (Miss. 2009). Allstate s proposed analysis, if accepted, would turn every priority coverage dispute into a factual quagmire. Which vehicle was stopped at the time of the collision? In which building did the fire begin? Which insured was more negligent? In addition to creating the practical problem of rendering priority of coverage difficult, if not impossible, to determine, adopting such an analysis would render insurers other insurance clauses superfluous. The better course, and the course that has been adopted and upheld by this Court on many occasions, is to resolve priority of coverage disputes by reference to the insurers other insurance clauses. See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Chicago Ins. Co., 676 So. 2d 271 (Miss. 1996) 4

8 (applying insurers other insurance clauses to determine priority of coverage); Guidant Mut. Ins. Co., 13 So. 3d 1270 (same); International Service Ins. Co. v. Ballard, 216 So. 2d 535 (Miss. 1968) (same); Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Miss., Inc. v. Larson, 485 So. 2d 1071 (Miss. 1986) (same); Southern Ins. Co. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 830 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. Miss. 2016) (same); EMJ Corp. v. Hudson Specialty Ins. Co., 833 F.3d 544 (5th Cir. Miss. 2016) (same); Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 907 F. Supp. 234 (S.D. Miss. 1995) (same). The Court should reject Allstate s request for a rehearing on this argument. Pursuant to well-established Mississippi law, priority of coverage is determined by comparing the insurers other insurance clauses. Injecting any additional factors into the priority-of-coverage analysis would, in addition to constituting a departure from Mississippi law, deprive insurers of the ability to contract to provide certain levels of coverage. B. Allstate s reliance on Hill is unpersuasive and unavailing. The Court should decline to reconsider Allstate s argument that [p]rinciples of equity require that the rule of repugnancy be applied in this case. See Mot. for Rehearing at 7. This Court has never adopted such an equitable rule, and doing so would obscure what is currently a clear rule of law. Furthermore, outside of its ipse dixit, Allstate offers nothing to show that the case at hand is the appropriate case warranting a departure from well-established precedent. As this Court recognized, [t]he general common law rule is that the liability of insurers under overlapping coverage policies is to be governed by the intent of the insurers as manifested by the terms of the policies which they have issued. Larson, 485 So. 2d at 1074 (citation omitted); Farmers Ins. Exch., 907 F. Supp. 234 at 236 ( When more than one insurance policy covers a particular incident, courts look first to the language of the policies to settle any disputes as to the application of the respective coverages. ). The terms which insurers use to manifest 5

9 this intent are generally divided into three types of other insurance clauses: pro rata clauses, excess clauses, and escape clauses. Id. at Regarding the rule of repugnancy, this Court has explained: [S]o long as the escape v. escape clauses, excess v. excess clauses, and prorata v. prorata clauses were identical, the courts held them to be conflicting and nugatory so as to cancel each other out, and therefore liability under the two policies was prorated between the two insurance policies in the ratio of the limits of liability fixed in each policy which bears to the total limits in all of the policies covering the risk. Id. at However, where an excess clause is in conflict with either an escape clause or a pro rata clause in the other policy, the excess clause ordinarily will be given full effect. Id. The Court appropriately applied this rule in this case by giving full effect to Continental s excess clause. Relying solely on Hill v. General Insurance Company of America, 456 F. Supp. 2d 757 (N.D. Miss. 2006), Allstate urges the Court to depart from entrenched Mississippi precedent permitting insurers to contract to provide certain levels of coverage. In Hill, the district court addressed a situation where the insured s house was insured by two fire insurers: (1) Farm Bureau pursuant to a policy purchased by the insured and (3) General pursuant to a policy purchased by the insured s lender. 456 F. Supp. 2d at 759. After the insured s house burned, the insured filed a claim with Farm Bureau. Id. Both Farm Bureau and the insured subsequently demanded that General contribute to the loss settlement on a pro rata basis, and General refused. Id. Applying Farm Bureau s pro rata clause and General s escape clause, the district court determined that General appropriately refused to contribute to the underlying settlement. Id. at 761. In reaching its decision that General was not required pursuant to the language of its policy s other insurance clause to contribute to the settlement, the district court remarked, 6

10 [w]hile it seems likely that a pro rata and escape clause might validly be held to be mutually repugnant as a matter of equity in an appropriate case, the court concludes that this is not such a case. Id. at 760. Importantly, the court elaborated that the insured was the paid the full amount of his fire loss by Farm Bureau. Id. According to the district court in Hill, it appears that the appropriate case requiring a departure from the rule of repugnancy is a case where the insured is left uninsured or underinsured via application of an insurer s escape clause. Such is not the case here. In the case at hand, Allstate and Continental both contributed significant sums of money to the settlement of Mr. Williams claim. Between the two insurers, Mr. Peters had ample liability coverage, and Mr. Williams never sought to recover from Mr. Peters personal assets. Continental has not attempted to escape liability so as to leave Mr. Peters under-insured, and the Court should accordingly find that this is not the appropriate case to deviate from the rule of repugnancy. Pursuant to well-established Mississippi law, where two insurers provide coverage for the same claim, priority of coverage is determined by comparing the policies other insurance clauses. Here, Allstate s policy contained a pro rata clause and Continental s contained an excess clause. Under such circumstances, courts are called to give full effect to the excess clause. Doing so in this case does not leave Mr. Peters under-insured or subject to personal liability and, accordingly, Allstate cannot offer any valid equitable argument for departing from established precedent. The Court should decline to revisit this issue. CONCLUSION Allstate s request for rehearing is procedurally improper because Allstate s arguments are a mere repetition of arguments already considered by this Court. Furthermore, Allstate s arguments fail as a matter of law. Priority of coverage is determined by comparing the insurers 7

11 other insurance clauses, and the application of the other insurance clauses in this case renders Allstate the sole primary insurer. The Court accordingly correctly found that Continental, as an excess insurer, is entitled to recover $20,000 from Allstate, and Allstate does not present any compelling reason to revisit this finding. Continental thus submits that the Court should deny Allstate s Motion for Rehearing. Dated: September 11, Respectfully submitted, CONTINENTAL CASUALY COMPANY BY: /s/ Michael R. Moore MICHAEL R. MOORE (MSB ) JOHN A. BANAHAN (MSB 1731) BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, PLLC Attorneys at Law 1103 Jackson Avenue Post Office Drawer 1529 Pascagoula, Mississippi (228) (228) (fax) michael@bnscb.com john@bnscb.com 8

12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael Moore, one of the attorneys for the Plaintiff Appellant, Continental Casualty Company, do hereby certify that I have this date electronically filed the foregoing Response in Opposition to Motion for Rehearing with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which sent notification to the following: Robert E. Briggs SHARP LAW FIRM, PLLC P.O. Box 6669 D Iberville, MS bob@thesharplawfirm.com In addition, I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief of Appellant was sent via United States Mail, postage prepaid to the following: Honorable Christopher Schmidt Harrison County Circuit Court, First Judicial District P.O. Box 1461 Gulfport, MS Dated: September 11, BY: /s/ Michael R. Moore MICHAEL R. MOORE (MSB ) BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, PLLC Attorneys at Law 1103 Jackson Avenue Post Office Drawer 1529 Pascagoula, Mississippi (228) (228) (fax) michael@bnscb.com 9

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY. v. No CA ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY. v. No CA ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY E-Filed Document Nov 10 2016 11:22:31 2016-CA-00359 Pages: 28 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY APPELLANT v. No. 2016-CA-00359 ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY E-Filed Document Oct 12 2016 11:09:10 2016-CA-00359 Pages: 49 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2016-CA-00359 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY APPELLANT VERSUS ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY

More information

APPELLANT S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE S MOTION FOR REHEARING

APPELLANT S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE S MOTION FOR REHEARING E-Filed Document May 16 2017 15:18:32 2016-IA-00571-SCT Pages: 6 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI FAWAZ ABDRABBO, MD. APPELLANT VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2016-IA-00571-SCT AUDRAY (ANDRES) JOHNSON (PRO SE)

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Pierson v. Wheeland, 2007-Ohio-2474.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) ROBERT G. PIERSON, ADM., et al. C. A. No. 23442 Appellees v. RICHARD

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: JANUARY 24, 2014; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2012-CA-002051-MR COUNTRYWAY INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE

More information

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, CAUSE NO.: A

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, CAUSE NO.: A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2009-CA-Ol723 BERTHA MADISON APPELLANT VERSUS GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT

More information

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00527-CV In re Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY O P I N I O N Real party in interest Guy

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. NO CA HOTEL AND RESTAURANT SUPPLY MOTION FOR REHEARING

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. NO CA HOTEL AND RESTAURANT SUPPLY MOTION FOR REHEARING E-Filed Document Mar 24 2016 16:43:53 2014-CA-01685-SCT Pages: 6 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE APPELLANT V. NO. 2014-CA-01685 HOTEL AND RESTAURANT SUPPLY APPELLEE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-856

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-856 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-856 RICHARD SNELL, Vs. Appellant/Petitioner ALLSTATE INDEMNITY CO., et al. Appellee/Respondent. / PETITIONER S THIRD AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION BOIES, SCHILLER

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: April 4, 2011 Docket No. 29,537 FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, CHRISTINE SANDOVAL and MELISSA

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ALI AHMAD BAKRI, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 21, 2016 v No. 326109 Wayne Circuit Court SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, also LC No. 13-006364-NI known as HARTFORD

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, UNPUBLISHED March 16, 2017 Plaintiff, v No. 329277 Oakl Circuit Court XL INSURANCE AMERICA, INC., ZURICH LC No. 2014-139843-CB

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON JANETTE LEDING OCHOA, ) ) No. 67693-8-I Appellant, ) ) DIVISION ONE v. ) ) PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC ) INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign ) corporation, THE PROGRESSIVE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: April 30, 2014 Docket No. 32,779 SHERYL WILKESON, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

More information

Insurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer*

Insurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer* Insurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer* By: Thomas F. Lucas McKenna, Storer, Rowe, White & Farrug Chicago A part of every insurer s loss evaluation

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI APPELLANT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI APPELLANT E-Filed Document Feb 22 2016 15:38:11 2015-CA-00890 Pages: 8 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2015-CA-00890 CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI APPELLANT VS WILLIE B. JORDAN APPELLEE

More information

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, CAUSE NO.: A

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, CAUSE NO.: A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2009-CA-Ol723 BERTHA MADISON APPELLANT VERSUS GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI WILLIAM M. MILEY, JR.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI WILLIAM M. MILEY, JR. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RITA FAYE MILEY VERSES WILLIAM M. MILEY, JR. APPELLANT CASE NO. 2008-TS-00677 APPELLEE BRIEF OF APPELLEE WILLIAM

More information

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY FILED 04/13/2011 11:11AM CLERK DISTRICT COURT POLK COUNTY IOWA IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY, vs. Plaintiff, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S LONDON, et al., CASE

More information

By:!J.~ PILED. MOTIONt OCT 1 g 2016 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA APPELLANT WALTERPOOLE,JR.

By:!J.~ PILED. MOTIONt OCT 1 g 2016 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA APPELLANT WALTERPOOLE,JR. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2015-CP-00604-COA WALTERPOOLE,JR. v. WILLIAM WALTON PILED OCT 1 g 2016 OFFICE OF THE CLERK.SUPAEMECOUAT COURT OF APPEALS APPELLANT APPELLEE MOTION

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA-01555

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA-01555 E-Filed Document Aug 4 2016 17:24:06 2015-CA-01555-SCT Pages: 14 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI THE FORMER BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND MEMBERS OF MISSISSIPPI COMP CHOICE SELF-INSURERS FUND

More information

OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT

OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2003 MAGNETIC IMAGING SYSTEMS, ** I, LTD.,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI 2013 CA STRIBLING INVESTMENTS, LLC. Appellant VS. MIKE ROZIER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI 2013 CA STRIBLING INVESTMENTS, LLC. Appellant VS. MIKE ROZIER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. E-Filed Document Mar 22 2016 12:26:29 2013-CA-02145-SCT Pages: 8 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI 2013 CA 02145 STRIBLING INVESTMENTS, LLC Appellant VS. MIKE ROZIER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. Appellee

More information

Alfred Seiple v. Progressive Northern Insurance

Alfred Seiple v. Progressive Northern Insurance 2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-12-2014 Alfred Seiple v. Progressive Northern Insurance Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.

More information

DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2013 MT 331

DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2013 MT 331 November 6 2013 DA 12-0654 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2013 MT 331 JEANETTE DIAZ and LEAH HOFFMANN-BERNHARDT, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. Plaintiffs and

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION ROBERT PHELPS, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 0174-08T3 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA COA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA COA E-Filed Document Jul 18 2017 16:12:13 2014-CT-01828-SCT Pages: 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2014-CA-01828-COA APPELLANT VS. CASE NO. 2014-CA-01828-COA BAPTIST HEALTH PLEX, BECKY VRIELAND

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D. C. Docket No. 1:09-cv JLK. versus

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D. C. Docket No. 1:09-cv JLK. versus Merly Nunez v. GEICO General Insurance Compan Doc. 1116498500 Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 1 of 13 [PUBLISH] MERLY NUNEZ, a.k.a. Nunez Merly, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

More information

Mississippi Supreme Court

Mississippi Supreme Court E-Filed Document Aug 30 2016 11:38:19 2015-CA-01177-SCT Pages: 15 IN THE Mississippi Supreme Court NO. 2015-CA-1177 HENRY W. kinney, Appellant VERSUS SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, No. 65924-3-I Appellant, v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PUBLISH COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. Plaintiff/Appellant

More information

RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: OVERVIEW AND UPDATE

RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: OVERVIEW AND UPDATE RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: OVERVIEW AND UPDATE Wes Johnson Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 4452 Telephone: 214 712 9500 Telecopy: 214 712 9540 Email: wes.johnson@cooperscully.com

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ********** STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 11-1112 STEPHANIE LEBLANC, ET UX. VERSUS SAMANTHA LAVERGNE, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED January 27, 2004 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 242967 Oakland Circuit Court EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY,

More information

2013 PA Super 97. : : : Appellee : No. 124 WDA 2012

2013 PA Super 97. : : : Appellee : No. 124 WDA 2012 2013 PA Super 97 THOMAS M. WEILACHER AND MELISSA WEILACHER, Husband and Wife, : : : Appellants : : v. : : STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : Appellee

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ST. JOHN MACOMB OAKLAND HOSPITAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION December 8, 2016 9:00 a.m. v No. 329056 Macomb Circuit Court STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE LC No.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PROGRESSIVE MICHIGAN INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED June 17, 2003 Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v No. 237926 Wayne Circuit Court AMERICAN COMMUNITY MUTUAL LC No.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ATTALA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ATTALA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI E-Filed Document Jun 30 2016 11:18:49 2015-CA-01772 Pages: 11 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BROOKS V. MONAGHAN VERSUS ROBERT AUTRY APPELLANT CAUSE NO. 2015-CA-01772 APPELLEE APPEAL

More information

THE 24TH ANNUAL INSURANCE SYMPOSIUM: ALLOCATION & OTHER INSURANCE ROBERT J. WITMEYER & KATYA G. LONG

THE 24TH ANNUAL INSURANCE SYMPOSIUM: ALLOCATION & OTHER INSURANCE ROBERT J. WITMEYER & KATYA G. LONG THE 24TH ANNUAL INSURANCE SYMPOSIUM: ALLOCATION & OTHER INSURANCE BY: ROBERT J. WITMEYER & KATYA G. LONG 2017 This paper and/or presentation provides information on general legal issues. It is not intended

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ELLIS TURNAGE APPELLANT V. NO CA COA ELLIS CHRISTOPHER BROOKS, ET. AL.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ELLIS TURNAGE APPELLANT V. NO CA COA ELLIS CHRISTOPHER BROOKS, ET. AL. E-Filed Document Sep 6 2016 16:10:23 2014-CA-00966-COA Pages: 16 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ELLIS TURNAGE APPELLANT V. NO. 2014-CA-00966-COA ELLIS CHRISTOPHER BROOKS, ET. AL. APPELLEES

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED County Civil Court: CONTRACTS. The agreement between the parties to submit to binding arbitration unambiguously states the parties retain the right to bring claims within the jurisdiction of small claims

More information

Case 2:17-cv DAK Document 21 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

Case 2:17-cv DAK Document 21 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH Case 2:17-cv-00280-DAK Document 21 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH Kang Sik Park, M.D. v. Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER First American Title Insurance

More information

Francis Guglielmelli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile I

Francis Guglielmelli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile I 2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-6-2015 Francis Guglielmelli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile I Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

More information

No. 47,320-CA ON REHEARING COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *

No. 47,320-CA ON REHEARING COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * * Judgment rendered January 5, 013. No. 47,30-CA ON REHEARING COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA RHONDA PITTMAN Plaintiff-Appellee versus LAWRENCE E. METZ Defendant-Appellee Originally Appealed

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MYCHELLE PROUGH, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 12, 2002 v No. 229490 Calhoun Circuit Court FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE LC No. 00-000635-CK COMPANY OF MICHIGAN,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PROGRESSIVE MICHIGAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee of KRISTINE BRENNER, UNPUBLISHED November 22, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 328869 Montmorency Circuit Court ANTHONY

More information

No. 47,320-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * * * * * * *

No. 47,320-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * * * * * * * Judgment rendered September 20, 2012. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, LSA-CCP. No. 47,320-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * RHONDA

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No.: SC ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF RESPONDENTS BARBARA REIS AND JOSEPH REIS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No.: SC ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF RESPONDENTS BARBARA REIS AND JOSEPH REIS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. Case No.: SC06-962 BARBARA REIS and JOSEPH REIS, Respondents. / ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

More information

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS REL: 10/10/08 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

No. 07SA50, In re Stephen Compton v. Safeway, Inc. - Motion to compel discovery - Insurance claim investigation - Self-insured corporation

No. 07SA50, In re Stephen Compton v. Safeway, Inc. - Motion to compel discovery - Insurance claim investigation - Self-insured corporation Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/ supctindex.htm. Opinions are also posted on the

More information

62 P.3d Ariz. 244 Jerry SCRUGGS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

62 P.3d Ariz. 244 Jerry SCRUGGS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. 62 P.3d 989 204 Ariz. 244 Jerry SCRUGGS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. No. -0166. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department E. February

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CRYSTAL BARNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED July 29, 2014 APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION November 13, 2014 9:00 a.m. v No. 314621 Wayne Circuit Court FARMERS INSURANCE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO MEMORANDUM RE DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SEVER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO MEMORANDUM RE DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SEVER ZINNO v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Doc. 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA VINCENT R. ZINNO v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-792

More information

2014 PA Super 192. Appellees No EDA 2013

2014 PA Super 192. Appellees No EDA 2013 2014 PA Super 192 TIMOTHY AND DEBRA CLARKE, H/W, Appellants IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MMG INSURANCE COMPANY AND F. FREDERICK BREUNINGER & SON, INSURANCE, INC. Appellees No. 2937 EDA 2013

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 DONALD C. PETRA v. Appellant PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 505 MDA 2018 Appeal

More information

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THOMAS H. HEATON, ADM. OF THE ESTATE OF CLIFF ADAM HEATON

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THOMAS H. HEATON, ADM. OF THE ESTATE OF CLIFF ADAM HEATON [Cite as Heaton v. Carter, 2006-Ohio-633.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THOMAS H. HEATON, ADM. OF THE ESTATE OF CLIFF ADAM HEATON -vs- Plaintiff-Appellant JUDGES: Hon.

More information

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED ON BEHALF OF HOWARD INDUSTRIES, INC.

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED ON BEHALF OF HOWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. E-Filed Document Jul 8 2016 15:25:45 2014-CA-01790-COA Pages: 18 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI VINCE HARDAWAY VS. HOWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. and CORVEL ENTERPRISE COMP. INC. f/k/a SAFETY

More information

Mlekush v. Farmers Insurance Exchange: Defining the Standard for the Insurance Exception to the American Rule

Mlekush v. Farmers Insurance Exchange: Defining the Standard for the Insurance Exception to the American Rule Montana Law Review Online Volume 78 Article 10 7-20-2017 Mlekush v. Farmers Insurance Exchange: Defining the Standard for the Insurance Exception to the American Rule Molly Ricketts Alexander Blewett III

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA. v. // CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13CV148 (Judge Keeley)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA. v. // CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13CV148 (Judge Keeley) Draughn v. Harman et al Doc. 17 MARY C. DRAUGHN, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Plaintiff, v. // CIVIL ACTION NO. (Judge Keeley) NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA-00062

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA-00062 E-Filed Document Jun 8 2016 17:38:15 2016-CA-00062 Pages: 24 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2016-CA-00062 GULFPORT PARTNERS V, L.P.; GULFPORT PARTNERS VI, L.P.; GULFPORT PARTNERS

More information

v No LC No NF INSURANCE COMPANY, v No LC No NF INSURANCE COMPANY,

v No LC No NF INSURANCE COMPANY, v No LC No NF INSURANCE COMPANY, S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S VHS OF MICHIGAN, INC., doing business as DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER, UNPUBLISHED October 19, 2017 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 332448 Wayne Circuit Court

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, L.T. Nos.: 3D PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, L.T. Nos.: 3D PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MIGUEL A. FONSECA, v. Petitioner, Case No.: SC09-732 L.T. Nos.: 3D08-1465 06-18955 06-10636 MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D CORRECTED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D CORRECTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT LOUIS PHILIP LENTINI, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL E. LENTINI, JR., Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiffs, vs. ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE CO.. Defendants. Case No.

More information

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: February 26, 2015 518993 BROOME COUNTY, v Respondent- Appellant, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY

More information

Case 1:13-cv JGK Document 161 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:13-cv JGK Document 161 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 14 Case 1:13-cv-03755-JGK Document 161 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE FAIRBANKS COMPANY, Defendant/Plaintiff,

More information

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1789 CAPITOL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff - Appellant, NATIONWIDE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONWIDE

More information

TWO AUTOMOBILES INSURED UNDER FAMILY POLICY DOUBLES STATED MEDICAL PAYMENTS COVERAGE LIMIT OF LIABILITY

TWO AUTOMOBILES INSURED UNDER FAMILY POLICY DOUBLES STATED MEDICAL PAYMENTS COVERAGE LIMIT OF LIABILITY TWO AUTOMOBILES INSURED UNDER FAMILY POLICY DOUBLES STATED MEDICAL PAYMENTS COVERAGE LIMIT OF LIABILITY Central Surety & Insurance Corp. v. Elder 204 Va. 192,129 S.E. 2d 651 (1963) Mrs. Elder, plaintiff

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Reinicke Athens Inc. v. National Trust Insurance Company Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION REINICKE ATHENS INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION

More information

SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2008-TS-01454

SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2008-TS-01454 SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2008-TS-01454 DORIS A. ANDRES APPELLANT VERSUS PATRICK T. ANDRES APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D. C. Docket No CV-KLR.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D. C. Docket No CV-KLR. [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08-11336 Non-Argument Calendar D. C. Docket No. 07-80310-CV-KLR FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MARCH 11,

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Westfield Group v. Cramer, 2004-Ohio-6084.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) THE WESTFIELD GROUP Appellee C.A. No. 04CA008443 v. RICKIE CRAMER

More information

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No: 0:11-cv JIC.

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No: 0:11-cv JIC. James River Insurance Company v. Fortress Systems, LLC, et al Doc. 1107536055 Case: 13-10564 Date Filed: 06/24/2014 Page: 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-10564

More information

[Cite as Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2001-Ohio ] : : : : : : : : : :

[Cite as Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2001-Ohio ] : : : : : : : : : : [Cite as Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2001-Ohio- 1818.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ANNETTE LEISURE, ET AL. -vs- Plaintiffs-Appellees STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

More information

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S DAVID GURSKI, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION October 17, 2017 9:00 a.m. v No. 332118 Wayne Circuit Court MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE LC No.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE APRIL 4, 2002 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE APRIL 4, 2002 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE APRIL 4, 2002 Session TIMOTHY J. MIELE and wife, LINDA S. MIELE, Individually, and d/b/a MIELE HOMES v. ZURICH U.S. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court

More information

2018COA56. No. 17CA0098, Peña v. American Family Insurance Motor Vehicles Uninsured/Underinsured

2018COA56. No. 17CA0098, Peña v. American Family Insurance Motor Vehicles Uninsured/Underinsured The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. DAVID MILLS, Appellant V. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, LP, Appellee

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. DAVID MILLS, Appellant V. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, LP, Appellee Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 10, 2015 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-00769-CV DAVID MILLS, Appellant V. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, LP, Appellee On Appeal from

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY RABRINDA CHOUDRY, and ) DEBJANI CHOUDRY, ) ) Defendants Below/Appellants, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. CPU4-12-000076 ) STATE OF

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JAMES MOTZENBECKER, ELIZABETH MOTZENBECKER, CHELSEA ACKERMECHT,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. Petitioner, S.C. Case No.: SC DCA Case No.: 5D v. L.T. Case No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. Petitioner, S.C. Case No.: SC DCA Case No.: 5D v. L.T. Case No. Filing # 12738024 Electronically Filed 04/21/2014 04:09:09 PM RECEIVED, 4/21/2014 16:13:38, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO. BASIK EXPORTS & IMPORTS, INC., Petitioner, v. PREFERRED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2013-NMSC-006 Filing Date: February 21, 2013 Docket No. 33,622 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, SAFECO

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STATE OF IDAHO County of KOOTENAI ss FILED AT O'Clock M CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI SIDNEY

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY. Cause No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY. Cause No. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO FILED BY CLERK FEB 14 2007 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO RICHARD ACOSTA, v. Plaintiff/Appellant, PHOENIX INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiffs-Appellees, : No. 02AP-1222 : (C.P.C. No. 00CVC-6742) : (REGULAR CALENDAR)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiffs-Appellees, : No. 02AP-1222 : (C.P.C. No. 00CVC-6742) : (REGULAR CALENDAR) [Cite as Justus v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2003-Ohio-3913.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Ronald Justus et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellees, No. 02AP-1222 (C.P.C. No. 00CVC-6742) Allstate

More information

Appellant/Cross-Appellee, CASE NO. 1D

Appellant/Cross-Appellee, CASE NO. 1D AMERICAN ASSURANCE CORP., CAPITAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv CW

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv CW NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JUN 4 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS HOTCHALK, INC. No. 16-17287 v. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv-03883-CW

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, -1- Plaintiff-Counterdefendant- Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION July 6, 2001 9:00 a.m. v No. 216773 LC No. 96-002431-CZ MICHELE D. BUCKALLEW,

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ********** STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-1209 LISA JOHNSON, ET AL. VERSUS ASHLEY CITIZEN, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2011-CA-01274

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2011-CA-01274 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2011-CA-01274 COMMONWEALTH BRANDS, INC., THE CORR-WILLIAMS COMPANY AND VICKSBURG SPECIALTY COMPANY APPELLANTS vs. J. ED MORGAN, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OF THE DEPARTMENT

More information

2018 IL App (5th) NO IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2018 IL App (5th) NO IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 11/29/18. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2018 IL App (5th) 170484 NO. 5-17-0484

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 16, 2009 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 16, 2009 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 16, 2009 Session MARK BAYLESS ET AL. v. RICHARDSON PIEPER ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 05C-3547 Amanda Jane McClendon,

More information

FRANK AND BETTINA GAMBRELL, Plaintiffs/Appellants, IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee.

FRANK AND BETTINA GAMBRELL, Plaintiffs/Appellants, IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO FRANK AND BETTINA GAMBRELL, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee. No. 2 CA-CV 2014-0147 Filed September 9,

More information

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division I Opinion by JUDGE KAPELKE* Taubman and Bernard, JJ., concur. Announced February 3, 2011

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division I Opinion by JUDGE KAPELKE* Taubman and Bernard, JJ., concur. Announced February 3, 2011 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 09CA2315 Adams County District Court No. 07CV630 Honorable Katherine R. Delgado, Judge Robert Cardenas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Financial Indemnity Company,

More information

THOMAS P. DORE, ET AL., SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES. Wright, Arthur, Salmon, James P. (Retired, Specially Assigned),

THOMAS P. DORE, ET AL., SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES. Wright, Arthur, Salmon, James P. (Retired, Specially Assigned), UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0230 September Term, 2015 MARVIN A. VAN DEN HEUVEL, ET AL. v. THOMAS P. DORE, ET AL., SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES Wright, Arthur, Salmon, James P. (Retired,

More information

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co v. David Randall Associates Inc

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co v. David Randall Associates Inc 2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-9-2014 Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co v. David Randall Associates Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

More information

ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. URSZULA MARCHWIANY et al., Appellants. Docket No SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. URSZULA MARCHWIANY et al., Appellants. Docket No SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS Page 1 ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. URSZULA MARCHWIANY et al., Appellants. Docket No. 101598. SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS 222 Ill. 2d 472; 856 N.E.2d 439; 2006 Ill. LEXIS 1116; 305 Ill.

More information

FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING TRIAL COURT. the trial court s Final Judgment entered July 16, 2014, in favor of Appellee, Emergency

FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING TRIAL COURT. the trial court s Final Judgment entered July 16, 2014, in favor of Appellee, Emergency IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000054-A-O Lower Case No.: 2011-SC-008737-O Appellant, v.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO IA SCT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO IA SCT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2008-IA-01191-SCT SHANNON HOLMES AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLANTS VS. LEE MCMILLAN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF HINDS

More information

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS June 10, 2004 PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC, ET AL.

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS June 10, 2004 PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC, ET AL. Present: All the Justices WILLIAM ATKINSON v. Record No. 032037 OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS June 10, 2004 PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK John C. Morrison,

More information