1 RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 13a0294p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. YOUTH ALIVE, INC., Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. X >, N Nos /5805 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville. No. 3:09-cv Charles R. Simpson III, District Judge. Argued: April 25, 2013 Decided and Filed: October 11, 2013 Before: SILER, GIBBONS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges. COUNSEL ARGUED: T. Morgan Ward, Jr., STITES & HARBISON, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant/ Cross-Appellee. Palmer G. Vance II, STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ON BRIEF: T. Morgan Ward, Jr., Jamie K. Neal, STITES & HARBISON, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant/ Cross-Appellee. Palmer G. Vance II, Carl N. Frazier, STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, Shea W. Conley, Matthew T. Lockaby, REMINGER CO. LPA, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. OPINION GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. At this juncture, the sole question at issue in these consolidated appeals which arise from an insurance coverage dispute between Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company ( Philadelphia Indemnity ) and its insured, Youth Alive, Inc. ( Youth Alive ) is whether Youth Alive sufficiently alleged that 1
2 Nos /5805 Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Youth Alive, Inc. Page 2 Philadelphia Indemnity acted in bad faith in seeking a declaratory judgment that neither of its two pertinent insurance policies provided coverage to Youth Alive. Because we conclude that Philadelphia Indemnity s position on coverage was reasonable as a matter of law, we agree with the district court that Youth Alive failed to sufficiently allege badfaith claims against Philadelphia Indemnity. We therefore affirm the dismissal of Youth Alive s claims. We dismiss as moot the remainder of Youth Alive s appeal and Philadelphia Indemnity s cross-appeal. I. In this diversity action, the underlying facts are not in dispute. Youth Alive is a nonprofit corporation providing mentoring and other services to at-risk youth in Louisville, Kentucky. In 2008, Youth Alive transported several youths to an event in Louisville using three vans owned by Youth Alive. When the event concluded, four of the youths attempted to board a Youth Alive van for the ride home but were apparently unable to do so because it was full. Noticing the situation, a Youth Alive employee requested that sixteen-year-old Herbert Lee, a Youth Alive participant who had driven himself to the event in a separate vehicle, drive the four children to their homes. Lee agreed to do so, and the four youths traveled with him. Lee, however, did not possess a valid driver s license. Moreover, the car that he was driving was not his: it had been stolen during a carjacking. Soon after Lee drove away from the event toward his passengers homes, a police officer noticed that Lee was driving erratically. The police officer ran a check of the license plate information, discovered that the car had been stolen, and gave chase. Lee fled from the pursuing officer but lost control of his car and collided with a tree. Lee survived the crash, but all four of his passengers were killed. After the accident, the estates of the four children brought lawsuits against Youth Alive in Kentucky state court, alleging that Youth Alive was negligent in permitting the children to be driven home by Lee. Youth Alive notified Philadelphia Indemnity of the suit and requested defense and indemnification under two policies issued to it by Philadelphia Indemnity: a commercial general liability policy with a $1 million liability
3 Nos /5805 Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Youth Alive, Inc. Page 3 limit (the CGL policy ) and a commercial excess liability policy with a $2 million liability limit (the excess policy ). Philadelphia Indemnity provided a defense to Youth Alive in the estates state court action pursuant to a reservation of rights letter that disputed coverage. Thereafter, Philadelphia Indemnity filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky a declaratory judgment action seeking a judicial determination that neither policy provided coverage for the claims arising from the accident. According to Philadelphia Indemnity, the CGL policy did not provide coverage because Automobile Exclusion (g) excluded coverage for any bodily injury arising from the use of any automobile owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured. Philadelphia Indemnity argued that Exclusion (g) applied because the CGL policy defines insured to include volunteer workers and club members performing activities on Youth Alive s behalf. According to Philadelphia Indemnity, Lee was either a volunteer worker or a club member and, accordingly, bodily injury resulting from his operation of the car was excluded from coverage. Philadelphia Indemnity likewise argued that its excess policy did not provide coverage for claims arising from the accident. According to Philadelphia Indemnity, the excess policy also contained an automobile liability exclusion that excluded by its plain terms any liability arising out of the use of any automobile, whether or not operated by an insured. Youth Alive defended Philadelphia Indemnity s declaratory judgment action and claimed coverage under the two commercial policies. In addition, Youth Alive filed counterclaims asserting that Philadelphia Indemnity s coverage positions had no reasonable basis in law or fact and therefore Philadelphia Indemnity (1) breached its common law duty of good faith and fair dealing and (2) violated the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, Ky. Rev. Stat , by misrepresenting pertinent coverages and failing to affirm liability on claims within a reasonable time. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issues of coverage, and Philadelphia Indemnity filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to
4 Nos /5805 Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Youth Alive, Inc. Page 4 dismiss Youth Alive s bad-faith counterclaims. The district court granted in part and denied in part both parties summary judgment motions, concluding that Philadelphia Indemnity was obligated to defend and indemnify Youth Alive pursuant to the CGL policy but not under the excess policy. In the meantime, however, the state court action between the estates and Youth Alive was dismissed and Youth Alive s liability to the estates extinguished by a settlement and the payment by Philadelphia Indemnity of $1.8 million. The settlement sum represents the $1 million limit of Philadelphia Indemnity s CGL policy, plus $800,000 of the $2 million excess policy. Later, the federal district court granted Philadelphia Indemnity s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Youth Alive s statutory and common-law bad-faith counterclaims, reasoning that, as a matter of law, Philadelphia Indemnity s coverage position had not been taken in bad faith. The parties cross-appealed the district court s adverse rulings. II. At oral argument, the parties conceded that their appeals of the district court s summary judgment rulings on the issue of coverage are moot in light of the settlement of the underlying personal injury action and payment by Philadelphia Indemnity. See Wedgewood Ltd. P ship I v. Twp. of Liberty, 610 F.3d 340, 348 (6th Cir. 2010) ( The test for mootness is whether the relief sought would, if granted, make a difference to the legal interests of the parties. (internal quotation marks omitted)). As a result, only the dismissal of Youth Alive s bad-faith claims remains pending for purposes of this appeal. We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), construing the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and accepting all well-pled factual allegations as true. See Terry v. Tyson Farms, Inc., 604 F.3d 272, 274 (6th Cir. 2010). While a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it contains either direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements necessary for recovery under a viable legal theory, this court need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences, and conclusory allegations or legal conclusions
5 Nos /5805 Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Youth Alive, Inc. Page 5 masquerading as factual allegations will not suffice. Id. at (citation and quotation marks omitted). [A] plaintiff s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Republic Bank & Trust Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 683 F.3d 239, (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Rather, [t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Id. at 247 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Youth Alive claims, under Kentucky law, that Philadelphia Indemnity s positions disputing coverage under the two policies were taken in bad faith and caused Youth Alive to suffer significant damages including cessation of its operations during the pendency of the underlying litigation. Under Kentucky law, a plaintiff must adequately allege three elements to maintain a bad-faith claim: (1) that the insurer was obligated to pay the claim under the terms of the policy ; (2) that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis in law or fact for denying the claim ; and (3) that the insurer either knew there was no reasonable basis for denying the claim or acted with reckless disregard for whether such a basis existed. Pedicini v. Life Ins. Co. of Alabama, 682 F.3d 522, 528 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Wittmer v. Jones, 864 S.W.2d 885, 890 (Ky. 1993)). This standard applies to both Youth Alive s common-law and statutory bad-faith claims. Rawe v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 521, 527 (6th Cir. 2006). The bad faith inquiry essentially probes whether, in the investigation, evaluation, and processing of the claim, the insurer acted unreasonably and either knew or was conscious of the fact that its conduct was unreasonable. Phelps v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 680 F.3d 725, 732 (6th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). As a result, if an insured s entitlement to coverage on a given claim is fairly debatable, inasmuch as there is a genuine dispute over the pertinent facts or law, the insurer is entitled to litigate its duty to defend or indemnify the claim. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Simpsonville Wrecker Serv., Inc., 880 S.W.2d 886, (Ky. Ct.
6 Nos /5805 Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Youth Alive, Inc. Page 6 App. 1994). While a disputed factual matter such as a disagreement over the appropriate valuation of the loss will not always preclude a bad-faith claim as a matter of law, [u]ncertainty as to application of insurance policy provisions... is a reasonable and legitimate reason for an insurance company to litigate a claim. Farmland Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 36 S.W.3d 368, 375, 377 (Ky. 2000). Thus, when an insured s claim implicates an unresolved legal issue such as when recovery under an insurance policy is dependent upon a legal issue of first impression in Kentucky courts, id. at 375 the claim is fairly debatable as a matter of law and will not support a claim of bad faith. Empire, 880 S.W.2d at 891. Because the courts do not expect an insurer to subject[ ] itself to the risk of subsequently being sued for the tort of bad faith simply for litigating a first-impression issue, a bad-faith claim is precluded as a matter of law as long as there is room for reasonable disagreement as to the proper outcome of a contested legal issue, even if in hindsight it was fairly predictable that the dispute would be resolved against the insurer. Id. Applying these principles, we agree with Philadelphia Indemnity that, even on the facts as presented in Youth Alive s counterclaims, Youth Alive has failed to adequately allege the second element of the bad-faith analysis; specifically, that Philadelphia Indemnity lacked a reasonable basis in law or fact for contesting coverage under both policies. Pedicini, 682 F.3d at 528. With respect to the CGL policy, the pertinent policy language arguably supports Philadelphia Indemnity s position. The CGL policy defines a volunteer worker as an unpaid non-employee who donates her work and acts at the direction of and within the scope of duties determined by [Youth Alive]. Although the district court ultimately ruled that Lee s acquiescence to Youth Alive s request that he drive four children home from a sponsored event was neither sufficiently donative nor suitably taken within the scope of duties determined by Youth Alive to render him a volunteer worker for purposes of the CGL policy, Philadelphia Indemnity s argument in this regard was reasonable and may have been correct. In support of its claim that Philadelphia Indemnity s position was unreasonable, Youth Alive relies in part on its executives and board members opinions regarding who
7 Nos /5805 Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Youth Alive, Inc. Page 7 they believe qualifies as a volunteer for purposes of the organization s operations. But coverage under an insurance policy depends upon the terms of the policy at issue, not on either party s unilateral definition of similar language in extrinsic materials. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Slusher, 325 S.W.3d 318, 322 (Ky. 2010). The CGL policy provided its own definition of the term volunteer, and Philadelphia Indemnity s reading of the policy s language, if not a persuasive interpretation, is at least a plausible one. Youth Alive arguably had a duty to transport the four children home from its sponsored event. There is no temporal requirement to the CGL policy s definition of volunteer worker, and it was not unreasonable to argue that Lee, in accepting Youth Alive s directive to transport the children on its behalf, fell within the terms of the policy despite his brief term of service. Philadelphia Indemnity s position regarding the policy language was reasonable, and there is no Kentucky precedent to the contrary. Thus, Philadelphia Indemnity s interpretation of the policy was not so obviously implausible as to give rise to a bad-faith claim. See Empire, 880 S.W.2d at 891. Philadelphia Indemnity s argument that Lee was an insured by virtue of being a club member was similarly a matter subject to genuine debate. The CGL policy does not define club member, and Youth Alive again points to several sources extrinsic to the policy including standard industry practice and its own articles of incorporation, which purportedly prohibit members in an attempt to demonstrate that the proper interpretation of club member is not fairly debatable. But, again, this court s initial focus is on the meaning of the terms of the policy at issue, not on how the same or similar terms have been unilaterally deployed in different contexts by the parties. Slusher, 325 S.W.3d at 322. It was reasonable to assert that club member unambiguously carries an ordinary meaning similar to that advanced by Philadelphia Indemnity. Id. Despite Youth Alive s arguments to the contrary, the use of the term member in the CGL policy was not necessarily fused either to industry standards or to Youth Alive s definition of member in its organizational documents; the former could well be significantly broader than the latter two uses of the term, or vice versa.
8 Nos /5805 Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Youth Alive, Inc. Page 8 As Philadelphia Indemnity observes, Lee was a relatively active Youth Alive participant and had successfully applied to partake in several programs offered by the organization. In our view, Philadelphia Indemnity s argument that Lee s admittance to and participation in Youth Alive activities made him a member of the group was, even if ultimately incorrect, not entirely lacking in any reasonable basis. Again, there are no Kentucky cases on point that require a contrary construction of similar language, nor does the sparse out-of-state authority compel a different result. The success of Philadelphia Indemnity s position was not so improbable that the question was functionally not an open one under Kentucky law. See Empire, 880 S.W.2d at 891. As a result, although the district court ultimately concluded that Lee was neither a volunteer worker nor a club member under the terms of the CGL policy, we hold, as a matter of law, that Philadelphia Indemnity s position on coverage was reasonable. Id. Youth Alive is similarly incorrect in arguing that Philadelphia Indemnity had no reasonable basis to contest coverage under the excess policy. In fact, the plain language of the excess policy supports Philadelphia Indemnity s position, and the district court agreed with Philadelphia Indemnity that it had no duty to defend or indemnify based upon its excess policy. While there may be occasions when an insurance company has advanced arguments that are so unlikely to succeed that coverage is not fairly debatable, this is not the case here. Finally, to the extent that Youth Alive asserts that Philadelphia Indemnity proceeded in bad faith by unreasonably delaying settlement and erecting needless adversarial hoops as preconditions to Youth Alive s indemnification, we disagree. Farmland, 36 S.W.3d at 376 (quotation marks omitted); see Phelps, 680 F.3d at 733. The only dilatory tactic alleged by Youth Alive is that Philadelphia Indemnity refused to settle the estates claims against Youth Alive pending the outcome of its declaratory judgment action in the district court. But, as indicated, Philadelphia Indemnity s litigation stance in the district court was reasonable. When coverage is reasonably in dispute, the preferred course of conduct for an insurance company is what occurred in
9 Nos /5805 Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Youth Alive, Inc. Page 9 the present case: (1) a defense of its insured s underlying personal injury action under a reservation of rights; and (2) a separate declaratory action adjudicating the issue of coverage. See Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Commonwealth, 179 S.W.3d 830, 841 (Ky. 2005); see also 14 Couch on Insurance 202:1, 202:38 (3d ed. 2012). Here, it was reasonable for Philadelphia Indemnity not to commit itself to a settlement before coverage was determined. Furthermore, Philadelphia Indemnity investigated the claim, provided a defense, and eventually settled the case on Youth Alive s behalf for an amount within its two policies. Although Youth Alive incurred expenses and hardship in contesting coverage with Philadelphia Indemnity, its allegations of bad faith fail as a matter of law. See Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Glass, 996 S.W.2d 437, 452 (Ky. 1997). We therefore agree with the district court s dismissal. III. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s dismissal of Youth Alive s counterclaims. We dismiss as moot the remainder of Youth Alive s appeal and Philadelphia Indemnity s cross-appeal.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 16, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the
Case 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9 WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. JAMES CZECH and WILLIAMS BUILDING COMPANY, INC., Defendants. United States District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:01 CV 726 DDN VENETIAN TERRAZZO, INC., Defendant. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Pursuant
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO FRANCIS GRAHAM, ) No. ED97421 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Steven H. Goldman STATE
Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE
Houston Specialty Insurance Company v. Titleworks of Southwest Florida, Inc. et al Doc. 20 HOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES PERKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION July 18, 2013 9:00 a.m. v No. 310473 Grand Traverse Circuit Court AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 2011-028699-NF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 KENNETH ASHLEY Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA CINDY ASHLEY AND/OR NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Appellee No. 1486 WDA
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 07-3147 NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, 1452-4 N. MILWAUKEE AVENUE, LLC, GREAT CENTRAL INSURANCE
case 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION CINDY GOLDEN, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:11 CV 399 STATE FARM MUTUAL
2016 IL App (1st) 133918-U No. 1-13-3918 SIXTH DIVISION May 6, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
RENDERED: JANUARY 22, 2010; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000566-MR TOM COX APPELLANT APPEAL FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JOHN KNOX MILLS,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 11, 2005 Session M&M AUTO SALES v. OLD REPUBLIC SURETY COMPANY v. BROOKS ROAD AUTO MART, LLC; BROOKS ROAD AUTO MART LLC D/B/A MEMPHIS AUTO WORLD;
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-27-2008 Henkel Corp v. Hartford Accident Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-4856 Follow
Case: 09-30299 Document: 0051998279 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D January 7, 2010 Summary
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2005 WI APP 90 Case No.: 2004AP116 Petition for review filed Complete Title of Case: JOSHUA D. HANSEN, PLAINTIFF, RICHARDSON INDUSTRIES, INC., INVOLUNTARY-PLAINTIFF,
Appellate Case: 12-1186 Document: 01019007431 Date Filed: 02/25/2013 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit LLOYD LAND; EILEEN LAND, Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Case 1:10-cv-02583-CCB Document 28 Filed 03/05/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CRYSTAL WILLIAMS * * v. * Case No. CCB-10-2583 * TRAVCO INSURANCE CO. * ******
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARYLAND ACCOUNTING SERVICES, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CCB-11-CV-00145 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs
Case 7:12-cv-00148-HL Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 11 CHRISTY LYNN WATFORD, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.
Case 2:08-cv-04597-LDD Document 17 Filed 02/05/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUZANNE BUTLER, Individually and as : Administratrix of the Estate
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION III PATRICK CORRIGAN, and ) No. ED99380 SEAN CORRIGAN, ) ) Appellants, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable
Case: 13-60119 Document: 00512554303 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT GARY CHENEVERT, v. Plaintiff Appellee United States Court of Appeals Fifth
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2002 WI App 237 Case No.: 02-0261 Complete Title of Case: KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, SR., DEBRA J. FOLKMAN AND KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, JR., Petition for Review filed.
Case: 14-60770 Document: 00513129690 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee United States Court of Appeals
Page 1 1 of 20 DOCUMENTS Colony Insurance Company v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, and Industrial Maintenance and Mechanical, Inc.; Geogia-Pacific, LLC v. Colony Insurance Company
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. 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. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
Case: 09-20311 Document: 00511062202 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 25, 2010 Charles
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA ELOURDE COLIN, Appellant, v. CASE NO.: CVA1 09-16 Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-7009-O PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0331n.06 No. 12-1887 ARTHUR HILL, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT v. CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF
Case: 12-16065 Date Filed: 09/19/2013 Page: 1 of 20 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-16065 D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-14312-KMM BETTY BOLLINGER, versus
2012 WI APP 17 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2011AP2 Petition for Review Filed Complete Title of Case: ARTISAN & TRUCKERS CASUALTY CO. AND PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 13-3381 Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corporation, doing business as Philadelphia Insurance Companies lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
Champ Realty Company v. American States Insurance Company Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CHAMP REALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff(s, vs. Case No. 4:10CV1058 JCH
Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WESTPORT INSURANCE Appeal from the Circuit Court CORPORATION, of McHenry County. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. No. 04--MR--53
Case 4:14-cv-01527 Document 39 Filed in TXSD on 07/08/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARTIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 15-1100 FRANCIS J. GUGLIELMELLI Appellant v. NOT PRECEDENTIAL STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Case 211-cv-03070-WHW -MCA Document 17 Filed 09/26/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID 199 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY KERRY FEDER, on behalf of herself and the putative class, Plaintiffs, WILLIAMS-SONOMA
Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Koontz, S.J. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE OPINION BY v. Record No. 100082 JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. April 21, 2011 ENTERPRISE LEASING
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D December 18, 2009 No. 09-10562 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk JM WALKER
MONTGOMERY COUNTY LAW REPORTER 140-301 2003 MBA 30 Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Resinski [140 M.C.L.R., Part II Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Resinski APPEAL and ERROR Motion for Summary
2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC
REL:07/31/2009 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
Case 6:12-cv-00914-RBD-TBS Document 136 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4525 TROVILLION CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC.; and CASA JARDIN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA HARRISONSBURG DIVISION WYNN S EXTENDED CARE, INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 5:13-cv-00114 v. PENNY L. BRADLEY, By: Hon. Michael
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II JENNIFER HELGESON and ANDREW HELGESON, Appellants, No. 41371-0-II v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION VIKING INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN a foreign corporation,
Case 0:07-cv-60771-JIC Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/07 09:36:18 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MRI SCAN CENTER, INC., on itself and all others similarly situated,
Case :0-cv-0-RLH -PAL Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * RIGHTHAVEN, LLC, a Nevada limitedliability company, Plaintiff, vs. THOMAS A. DIBIASE, an individual,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-1414 ALLEN L. FEINGOLD; PHILLIP GODDARD v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Phillip Goddard, Appellant On Appeal from the District
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 13a0014p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FORREST CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY et al Doc. 324 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
Case 4:14-cv-10200-DHH Document 26 Filed 10/21/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) NANCY AMORELLO, ) PETER AMORELLO, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION ) NO. 14-10200-DHH
Case 1:09-cv-01292-HHK Document 11 Filed 01/20/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KBI TRANSPORT SERVICES, and KATHEER B. IBRAHIM, Plaintiffs, Civil Action 09-01292
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1874 September Term, 2000 INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORK CORPORATION ET AL. v. FEDERAL INSURANCE CO. Salmon, Eyler, Deborah S., Bloom, Theodore
Case: 15-10510 Document: 00513424063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 15, 2016 Lyle W.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED November 20, 2002 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
Case: 11-20469 Document: 00511904997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D June 29, 2012 Lyle
Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS
NOTICE Decision filed 05/03/12. 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. 2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOEL JOHNSON, a single person, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
2015 IL App (1st 140790-U THIRD DIVISION March 25, 2015 No. 1-14-0790 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 14 2004 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk RONALD A. PETERSON, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant, v. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s London v. The Burlington Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 141408 Appellate Court Caption CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S LONDON,
Case: 14-10913 Date Filed: 12/15/2014 Page: 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10913 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-01066-MSS-TBM GEICO GENERAL
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION JOHN FRAZIER HUNT, : DECEMBER TERM, 2004 Plaintiff, : No. 2742 v. : (Commerce Program) NATIONAL
Affirm in part; Reverse in part; and Remand. Opinion Filed June 9, 2015. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00481-CV DAVID FUSARO, Appellant V. TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1944 THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff Appellant, PORTAL HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., Defendant Appellee.
CUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE AND WORKERS COMPENSATION Melissa Healy INTRODUCTION In Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the Arizona Supreme Court
SCHALLER, J. The plaintiffs 2 appeal from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Insurance Company of Greater New York, in this declaratory judgment action concerning a dispute about the defendant
REL: 06/30/2011 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
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KIRK A. HORN Mandel Pollack & Horn, P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ROBERT S. O DELL O Dell & Associates, P.C. Carmel, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
BAD FAITH VERDICTS The tort of bad faith failure to pay or investigate is still an often plead claim by the insured. Recent case law relies primarily on court precedent when determining whether the insured
Case: 1:10-cv-08146 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/29/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:342 TKK USA INC., f/k/a The Thermos Company, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff,
2009 WI APP 51 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2008AP1036 Complete Title of Case: JOHN A. MITTNACHT AND THERESA MITTNACHT, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, V. ST. PAUL FIRE AND CASUALTY
Case: 11-10294 Date Filed: 03/01/2012 Page: 1 of 6 EMMANUEL EBEH, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-10294 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv-02628-JDW-TBM
2016 IL App (1st) 150810-U Nos. 1-15-0810, 1-15-0942 cons. Fourth Division June 30, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in
Case 3:12-cv-00341 Document 30 Filed in TXSD on 03/31/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION PAC-VAN, INC., Plaintiff, VS. CHS, INC. D/B/A CHS COOPERATIVES,
Case :-cv-00-rsm Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS, INC., in its capacity as sponsor and fiduciary for CGI
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ESTATE OF TIMOTHY HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 23, 2007 v No. 259987 Oakland Circuit Court CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 2000-024949-CZ and Defendant/Cross-Defendant-
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-3601 J.E. Jones Construction Co.; The Jones Company Custom Homes, Inc., Now known as REJ Custom Homes, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Appeal from
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA J&K BODY SHOP, INC., ET AL., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) NO. CIV-11-0077-HE ) ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., ) ET AL., ) ) Defendants.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.