1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE CIVIL ACTION INSURANCE COMPANY, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO NORTH AMERICAN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY NO Plaintiff, v. BETTY R. DOUGHERTY, and PATRICIA BISCHOFF, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES W. DOUGHERTY, Defendants. M E M O R A N D U M EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J. DECEMBER 11, 1997 This is an interpleader action brought by plaintiff, Manufacturers Life Insurance Company ( Manufacturers Life ), pursuant to the federal interpleader statute, 28 U.S.C. 1335, against competing claimants to the proceeds of two life insurance policies issued by North American Life Assurance Company ( North American ) on the life of James W. Dougherty ( Mr. Dougherty ). 1 Manufacturers Life acknowledges that it is liable for the payment of the life insurance benefits owed under the policy and has deposited $45, in proceeds into the Registry of the Clerk 1 The Court has jurisdiction over this case in that claimants are citizens of diverse states and the amount in controversy exceeds $ U.S.C. 2255(a)(6). Betty R. Dougherty is citizen of Pennsylvania while the estate of James W. Dougherty is a citizen of Connecticut, and the amount in controversy is $45,
2 of Court. By agreement of the parties, Manufacturers Life was discharged from this litigation as a disinterested stakeholder. Therefore, the remaining issue to be resolved is which of the two claimants should receive the proceeds of the North American policies. The first claimant to the proceeds is Betty R. Dougherty ( Mrs. Dougherty ), the former wife of the decedent, who claims the proceeds as the named primary beneficiary on both policies. The second claimant is Patricia Bischoff, Mr. Dougherty s wife at the time of his death and the executrix of his estate ( the estate ). The estate claims that while Mrs. Dougherty is indeed the named beneficiary on both policies, it is entitled to receive the proceeds because Mrs. Dougherty waived her rights to the proceeds under an oral agreement with Mr. Dougherty entered into after the two had divorced. Presently before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the competing claimants. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Mrs. Dougherty and against the estate. I. BACKGROUND Mr. Dougherty and Mrs. Dougherty were divorced on January 25, In conjunction with the divorce, the parties entered into a property settlement agreement ( settlement agreement ) which provided in part that Mrs. Dougherty would become the owner of the North American polices at issue here and 2
3 another life insurance policy issued by Lutheran Brotherhood Insurance Company. In accordance with the settlement agreement, Mr. Dougherty transferred his ownership interest in the Lutheran Brotherhood policy to Mrs. Dougherty by executing an assignment of ownership form. However, Mr. Dougherty retained possession of the two North American policies and he continued to pay the premiums on those policies until the time of his death. The estate contends that the policies remained in Mr. Dougherty s possession under a subsequent oral agreement between Mr. Dougherty and Mrs. Dougherty which modified the settlement agreement. Pursuant to the alleged oral modification, Mrs. Dougherty accepted the cash value of the policies in lieu of an actual transfer of the policies. The estate further contends that by accepting the cash value of the policies, Mrs. Dougherty relinquished any beneficial interest she had in the policies, including the right to receive proceeds as the named beneficiary. Mrs. Dougherty, on the other hand, contends that the monies paid to her were compensation by Mr. Dougherty for certain legal fees that she incurred during the divorce process. Mrs. Dougherty also claims that Mr. Dougherty remained in possession of the policies because he had orally agreed to continue paying the premiums on the policy in order to secure her cooperation in obtaining the annulment of their marriage. 2 2 These facts were attested to in an affidavit executed by Mrs. Dougherty. The estate filed a motion to strike Mrs. 3
4 Mr. Dougherty died on December 1, At the time of his death, the named beneficiary of both of the North American policies was Mrs. Dougherty. II. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party can "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 3 When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The Court must accept the non-movant's version of the facts as true, and resolve conflicts in the non-movant's favor. Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 912 (1993). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Dougherty s affidavit based on the contention that she is incompetent to testify at trial under Pennsylvania s Dead Man s Statute, 42 Pa.C.S. 5933(a). The Court need not reach the issues presented by the estate s motion because even without considering Mrs. Dougherty s affidavit, summary judgment in Mrs. Dougherty s favor is appropriate for the reasons stated in this memorandum. 3 In an interpleader action, under 28 U.S.C. 1335, the Court is required to apply substantive state law. The parties have based their arguments upon Pennsylvania law applies. The Court therefore will apply Pennsylvania law. 4
5 See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, (1986). Once the movant has done so, however, the non-moving party cannot rest on its pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Rather, the nonmovant must then "make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of every element essential to his case, based on the affidavits or by depositions and admissions on file." Harter v. GAF Corp., 967 F.2d 846, 852 (3d Cir. 1992); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The applicable legal standards by which a court decides a summary judgment motion do not change when the parties file cross-motions for summary judgment. Appelmans v. City of Philadelphia, 826 F.2d 214, 216 (3d Cir. 1987); Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm n, 826 F.Supp (E.D.Pa. 1993), aff d, 27 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 1994). Therefore, the standard described above will be applied to each party s motion for summary judgment. III. DISCUSSION A. Mrs. Dougherty s Motion for Summary Judgment Under Pennsylvania law, there are two ways to revoke a designation of beneficiary contained in a life insurance policy which are relevant to this discussion. First, a policyholder can designate a new beneficiary by complying with the policy s terms pertaining to a change of beneficiary. Second, a policyholder can enter into an agreement with the named beneficiary by which the named beneficiary explicitly waives his or her interest in 5
6 the insurance proceeds. 4 The estate has failed to produce evidence which raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mr. Dougherty revoked his designation of Mrs. Dougherty as the beneficiary of the policies by either method. 1. Change of beneficiary In order to change the beneficiary under the terms of an insurance policy, the policyholder must strictly comply with the policy s terms. Equitable Life Assurance v. Stitzel, 299 Pa.Super. 199, 203, 445 A.2d 523, 525 (1982)(citing Cody v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 334 Pa. 137, 5 A.2d 887 (1939)). Under Pennsylvania law, the only exception to strict compliance with the policies terms arises when the policyholder had done everything possible to comply with the policy terms but has not succeeded in changing the beneficiary. Id. (citing Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Bannister, 448 F.Supp. 807 (W.D.Pa. 1978); Gannon v. Gannon, 88 Pa.Super. 239 (1926)). For the exception to apply, there must be shown a positive, unequivocal act toward making the change, the mere declaration of intent to change the beneficiary is not enough. Id. (citing 4 In Pennsylvania a designation of beneficiary can also be revoked by operation of statute when spouses divorce. In December of 1992, the legislature enacted section of the Decedents, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code, 20 Pa.C.S.A , which renders ineffective a beneficiary designation in favor of a former spouse unless it is found that the designation was intended to survive the divorce. However, the statute is inapplicable to the case before the Court because it only applies to persons who are domiciled in Pennsylvania at the time of death. Mr. Dougherty was domiciled in Connecticut when he died. Therefore, the statute is not considered here. 6
7 Garland v. Craven, 156 Pa.Super. 351, 41 A.2d 140 (1945)). After conducting discovery, the estate has failed to point to evidence that Mr. Dougherty changed the beneficiary listed on the North American policies to someone other than Mrs. Dougherty. Nor can the Court find that Mr. Dougherty undertook a positive, unequivocal act toward effectuating such a change. The Court concludes, therefore, that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mr. Dougherty died without attempting to comply with the change of beneficiary provisions contained in the insurance policies. 2. Waiver Absent an actual change of beneficiary under the terms of the policies, the beneficiary designation can be revoked only when a beneficiary explicitly waive[s] his interest in the life insurance proceeds in [a] property settlement agreement. Layne v. Layne, 442 Pa.Super. 398, 403, 659 A.2d 1048 (1995)(quoting Stitzel, 299 Pa.Super. at 203); Roth v. Roth, 413 Pa.Super. 88, 604 A.2d 1033 (1991). Therefore, unless there is express language in the settlement agreement by which the beneficiary designation was revoked, the named beneficiary is entitled to the proceeds. See Stitzel, 299 Pa.Super. at 203, 445 A.2d at (finding language relinquishing any and all claims... actions, causes of action to be too general to serve as waiver). 5 5 The position taken by the Pennsylvania courts in these matters was anticipated by Judge Cahn in Lincoln Life Insurance 7
8 The estate acknowledges that the settlement agreement did not contain express language revoking Mrs. Dougherty s rights as a beneficiary under the policy. Instead, the estate avers that, even in the absence of express language in the settlement agreement, the revocation occurred pursuant to a subsequent oral agreement. While no Pennsylvania court has ever held that a revocation of a beneficiary must be in writing, all relevant cases have dealt with written contracts. Layne, 442 Pa.Super. 398, 659 A.2d 1048; Roth, 413 Pa.Super. 88, 604 A.2d 1033; Stitzel, 299 Pa.Super. 199, 445 A.2d 523. Therefore, it seems doubtful that an oral contract could succeed when Pennsylvania courts have found that a written contract without express language fails to revoke the rights of a beneficiary. However, even if the Court were to acknowledge that a revocation could Company v. Blight, 399 F.Supp. 513, 515 (E.D.Pa. 1975), aff d 538 F.2d 319 (3d Cir. 1976),where he held that an agreement containing express language relinquishing any claim of ownership of a policy does not amount to an explicit waiver of rights to receive the proceeds as a designated primary beneficiary. See also Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. McCall, 509 F.Supp. 439 (W.D.Pa. 1981). Evelyn Blight agreed to relinquish any claim to ownership of the policies on her husband s life and  to execute any documents necessary to sever her interest in such policies. Blight, 399 F.Supp. at 515. The Court held that Mrs. Blight had not waived her right to the proceeds because property settlement agreements dealing with the ownership of insurance policies do not, in the absence of explicit language to the contrary, divest a divorced spouse of the right to receive as designated beneficiary the proceeds of a life insurance policy. The Court also held that Mr. Blight s failure to change the beneficiary, despite his right to do so, confirmed the designation of his former wife as the designated beneficiary. 8
9 occur by means of an oral contract, there is no evidence that Mrs. Dougherty used express language explicitly waiving her right to the proceeds of the policies during the formation of the alleged oral contract. In demonstrating that a modification occurred, the estate relies upon (1) the deposition of Mr. Heckler, Mr. Dougherty s attorney, in which Mr. Heckler testifies that (a) he believed a modification occurred when Mrs. Dougherty accepted cash in lieu of ownership of the policies, and (b) that Mr. Dougherty s intent in paying the cash value of the North American policies to Mrs. Dougherty was to maintain ownership of the policies; (2) various correspondence which forward a check from Mr. Dougherty to Mrs. Dougherty and make reference to Mrs. Dougherty accepting cash in lieu of ownership of insurance policies; and (3) the deposition of Patricia Bischoff, the executrix of Mr. Dougherty s estate and his wife at the time of his death, in which Patricia Bischoff confirms that Mr. Dougherty continued paying the premiums on the North American policies. Additionally, the estate points to conduct such as (1) Mrs. Dougherty s acceptance of the cash value of the policies; and (2) her failure to enforce the provisions of the settlement agreement which required Mr. Dougherty to transfer ownership of the policies to her. None of this evidence, however, points to express language uttered by Mrs. Dougherty explicitly waiving her rights as a named beneficiary. Therefore, the Court finds that 9
10 there is no material issue of fact 6 as to whether Mrs. Dougherty waived her right to receive proceeds under the policies as the named beneficiary. 7 B. The Estate s Summary Judgment Motion As a non-moving party, Mrs. Dougherty s burden is to "make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of every element essential to [her] case, based on the affidavits or by depositions and admissions on file." Harter v. GAF Corp., While waiver is ordinarily an issue of fact, it need not be submitted to the trier of fact if the evidence in support of waiver fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). 7 Even if the Court were to construe the estate s argument to be that Mrs. Dougherty by her conduct in carrying out the terms of the settlement agreement either exhibited an intent to or in fact waived her rights to the proceeds under the policies, the conclusion reached by the Court would not be altered. The Court concludes that the requirement under Pennsylvania law that the waiver of a beneficiary be made by express language precludes the argument that a waiver can be implied from the conduct of the parties. See Layne, 442 Pa.Super. 398, 659 A.2d 1048; Roth, 413 Pa.Super. 88, 604 A.2d 1033; Stitzel, 299 Pa.Super. 199, 445 A.2d 523. Even assuming that Pennsylvania law would recognize that, under certain circumstances, conduct can constitute waiver of a beneficiary designation on an insurance contract, the evidence of waiver in this case is neither sufficiently unambiguous nor specific enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mrs. Dougherty by her conduct waived her right to insurance proceeds as the named beneficiary under the policies. At best, Mrs. Dougherty s conduct evidenced her willingness to relinquish ownership of the policies, which would not implicate her right to receive proceeds as the named beneficiary under the policies. See Lincoln Life Insurance Company v. Blight, 399 F.Supp. 513, 515 (E.D.Pa. 1975), aff d 538 F.2d 319 (3d Cir. 1976)(holding that agreement containing express language relinquishing claim of ownership of insurance policy did not waive rights to receive proceeds as designated beneficiary). 10
11 F.2d 846, 852 (3d Cir. 1992); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Mrs. Dougherty has proved every element essential to her case, i.e., that she was the named beneficiary on the policies at the time of Mr. Dougherty s death, by submitting as evidence the designation of beneficiary form which was in effect at the time of Mr. Dougherty s death. Furthermore, the estate admits that Mrs. Dougherty was the named beneficiary on the policies when Mr. Dougherty died. Therefore, the estate s motion for summary judgment is denied. IV. CONCLUSION Betty R. Dougherty has demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute with respect to her claim that as the named beneficiary, she is entitled to collect the proceeds of the two life insurance policies insuring James W. Dougherty s life. She has also demonstrated that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that claim. Therefore, judgment will be entered in favor of Betty R. Dougherty and against the estate of James W. Dougherty. 11
12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE CIVIL ACTION INSURANCE COMPANY, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO NORTH AMERICAN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY NO Plaintiff, v. BETTY R. DOUGHERTY, and PATRICIA BISCHOFF, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES W. DOUGHERTY, Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this 11th day of December, 1997, after consideration of motion for summary judgment by Betty R. Dougherty (doc. no. 19), the response thereto by the estate of James W. Dougherty (doc. no. 25), motion for summary judgment by the estate of James W. Dougherty (doc. no. 20), the response thereto by Betty R. Dougherty (doc. no. 22), motion by the estate of James W. Dougherty to strike the affidavit of Betty R. Dougherty (doc. no. 24), and the response thereto (doc. no. 26), it is ORDERED that 1. The motion for summary judgment by Betty R. Dougherty is GRANTED. JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Betty R. Dougherty and against the estate of James W. Dougherty for the reasons stated in the Memorandum issued by the Court this day; 2. The motion for summary judgment by the estate of 12
13 James W. Dougherty is DENIED; 3. The Court having reached its conclusion without relying upon the affidavit of Betty R. Dougherty, the motion by the estate of James W. Dougherty to strike such affidavit is DENIED AS MOOT; 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to pay Betty R. Dougherty the sum held in the registry of the Court after a period of ten days from the date of this Order has passed. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J. 13
Case 2:04-cv-03428-SRD-ALC Document 29 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA EDWARD McGARRY, ET AL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 04-3428 TRAVELERS LIFE AND ANNUITY
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. No. 96-CV-4598 PATRICIA M. CURRY KELLY, et al., Defendants.
2:09-cv-14271-LPZ-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 06/24/10 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 09-14271 HON.
Case 2:06-cv-02026-CM Document 114 Filed 03/10/09 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ) METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v.
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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROL DEMIZIO AND ANTHONY : CIVIL ACTION DEMIZIO in their own right and as : ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE : NO. 05-409 OF MATTHEW
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION EEOC versus BROWN & GROUP RETAIL, INC. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-3074 Memorandum and Order Regarding Discovery Motions,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EVELYN THOMAS v. COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-5372 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Kauffman, J. April 18, 2008
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York insurance company, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRENDA D. FLUSTY and BETTY A. KRIDER, Co-Personal
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RUTH E. BARRER and : CIVIL ACTION ESTATE OF SIDNEY BARRER : : vs. : NO. 99-CV-3947 : METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE : COMPANY :
Case 1:11-cv-01397-CAP Document 69 Filed 02/27/13 Page 1 of 10 TAMMY DRUMMONDS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 1:11-CV-1397-CAP
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN PAUL BROEGE, and THE ESTATE OF STEVEN J. BROEGE, BY PHYLLIS A. BROEGE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, Wisconsin Residents, Plaintiffs,
8:09-cv-00341-LSC-FG3 Doc # 276 Filed: 07/19/13 Page 1 of 5 - Page ID # 3979 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MICHAEL S. ARGENYI, Plaintiff, v. CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-0824 In re: Life Insurance Policy No. 1642947-2,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION PAM HOWARD and EBEN HOWARD ex rel UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFFS v. No. 4:13CV00310 JLH ARKANSAS CHILDREN S HOSPITAL;
Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT
Page 1 FOCUS - 130 of 497 DOCUMENTS NICOLE TERRY, Personal Representative of the Estate of John Hunter Wellman, Jr., Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and DEBORAH A. WELLMAN, Defendants.
Case 2:14-cv-02386-MVL-DEK Document 33 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KIRSTEN D'JUVE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 14-2386 AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE : CHAPTER 7 AMERICAN REHAB & PHYSICAL : THERAPY, INC. : DEBTOR : CASE NO. 04-14562 ROBERT H. HOLBER, TRUSTEE : PLAINTIFF
Main Document Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE CASE NO. 512-bk-03367-RNO STEVEN RICHARD ALECKNA JAIME SUE ALECKNA CHAPTER 7 Debtors ***********************************
Case 1:09-cv-21435-MGC Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2011 Page 1 of 6 E. JENNIFER NEWMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 09-21435-Civ-COOKE/TURNOFF vs. Plaintiff
Case 1:08-cv-00225-EJL-CWD Document 34 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff, Case No.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit May 15, 2008 Barbara A. Schermerhorn Clerk IN RE CHRISTOPHER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE : CIVIL ACTION COMPANY, : NO. 99-3533 : Plaintiff, : : v. : : WILLIAM COSENZA, ET. AL., : : Defendants.
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 3:12-cv-01004-JPG-PMF Document 123 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #2498 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS HAMILTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT, an Illinois governmental
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JAMES D. FOWLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 08-cv-2785 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Judge Robert M. Dow,
Case 14-50028 Doc 30 Filed 03/16/15 EOD 03/16/15 15:59:28 Pg 1 of 8 SO ORDERED: March 16, 2015. Jeffrey J. Graham United States Bankruptcy Judge UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. : CIVIL ACTION : vs. : : NO. 99-CV-4871 THOMAS A. RIDDER, JR. : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOYNER,
Case: 1:10-cv-00117 Document #: 114 Filed: 11/08/10 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1538 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BRIANNA GREENE, on behalf of ) herself and others
Case 2:04-cv-02667-EEF-JCW Document 37 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CLYDE CHAMBERS VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-2667 SECTION T JOSHUA MARINE, INC.
Case 3:08-cv-00770-JJB-CN Document 51 10/26/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA PATRICIA ELIZABETH JAMES, ET AL VERSUS HAVEN HOMES SOUTHEAST, INC., ET AL CIVIL ACTION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION OF AMERICA, AN ILLINOIS : STOCK CORPORATION : Plaintiff, : : v. : : KEVIN BEAUCHAMP
Case 1:11-cv-03411-WMN Document 29 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARYLAND ELECTRICAL INDUSTRY * HEALTH FUND * * Civil Action No. WMN-11-3411
SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 22nd day of February, 2013. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WINSTON-SALEM DIVISION In re: Joseph Walter Melara and Shyrell Lynn Melara, Case No.
Case 08-00058-8-JRL Doc 40 Filed 05/20/09 Entered 05/20/09 14:28:43 Page 1 of 6 SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 20 day of May, 2009. J. Rich Leonard United States Bankruptcy Judge IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
Case 1:05-cv-00050-GC Document 29 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 245 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE BUSINESS LENDERS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 05-50-B-C RITANNE CAVANAUGH GAZAK,
Case 2:08-cv-03323-BMS Document 17 Filed 08/04/09 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PATRICIA MAYER, : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : CARLOS MASCAREHAS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION BARBARA DICKERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 4:03 CV 341 DDN DEACONESS LONG TERM CARE OF MISSOURI, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM
Case 4:13-cv-01104 Document 40 Filed in TXSD on 02/26/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SHARON JACKSON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION H-13-1104
Case 8:15-cv-02561-SCB-TBM Document 57 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID 238 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION MILLETTE KAREN STEPHENSON, as Personal Representative
Case 5:10-cv-00044-CAR Document 280 Filed 11/18/11 Page 1 of 14 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION TERRY CARTRETTE TINDALL, : : Plaintiff, : v. : Civil Action
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PHARMASTEM THERAPEUTICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 02-148 GMS VIACELL INC., CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., CORCELL, INC., STEMCYTE, INC.,
Case 3:12-cv-01348-HZ Document 32 Filed 03/08/13 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#: 144 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION KELLY J. YOX, an individual, v. Plaintiff, No.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 03-40540 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 8, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk Mary Pena, Plaintiff/Appellant,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, VS. Plaintiff, WILLBROS CONSTRUCTION (U.S.) LLC, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-4634 MEMORANDUM
Case 5:13-cv-01237-D Document 49 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA MART D. GREEN, Trustee of the David and Barbara Green 1993 Dynasty Trust,
Case 0:12-cv-60597-JIC Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/13 12:33:23 Page 1 LISA KOWALSKI, a Florida resident, v. Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan
Case: 5:14-cv-00136-DCR-REW Doc #: 138 Filed: 04/15/15 Page: 1 of 8 - Page ID#: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington GEORGE VINCENT VAUGHN, Plaintiff,
Case 0:14-cv-62840-JIC Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2015 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, KELLEY VENTURES, LLC, KEVIN P. KELLEY, and PHOENIX MOTORS, INC.,
DENIED: September 12, 2013 CBCA 3084 SELRICO SERVICES, INC., v. Appellant, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent. Theodore M. Bailey and Kristin Zachman of Bailey & Bailey, P.C., San Antonio, TX, counsel for
The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings and orders of this court the document set forth below. This document was signed electronically on November 12, 2008, which
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA In Re JUNG BEA HAN and Case No. 00-42086 HYUNG SOOK HAN, Debtors. JUNG BEA HAN, Plaintiff. v. Adv. No. 05-03012 GE CAPITAL SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE
Wills v. USP-Canaan et al Doc. 81 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHRISTOPHER WILLS, : No. 3:13cv1787 Plaintiff : : (Judge Munley) v. : : (Chief Magistrate Judge
RENDERED: MARCH 13, 2015; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2014-CA-000056-MR RAMONA SPINKS, EXECUTRIX OF THE WILL OF BENJAMIN SPINKS, DECEASED APPELLANT APPEAL
2:07-cv-12361-JF-DAS Doc # 18 Filed 03/19/08 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 159 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION STACEY MACK, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 07-12361 Hon. John Feikens
T.C. Memo. 2012-122 UNITED STATES TAX COURT DANIEL W. ROOD AND REBECCA ROOD, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 20817-09. Filed April 25, 2012. A. Brian Phillips, for
[Cite as Motorist Life Ins. Co. v. Sherbourne, 2014-Ohio-5205.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY MOTORISTS LIFE INS. CO., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. CASE NO. 1-14-17 PATRICIA
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 96-11134 Summary Calendar. Rosser B. MELTON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEACHERS INSURANCE & ANNUITY ASSOCIATION of AMERICA, Defendant- Appellee, United
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION REGINA KUHN, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT vs. COMFORT HOSPICE CARE, LLC,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 1 PAUL ELKINS and KATHY ELKINS, husband and wife, v. Plaintiffs, QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a foreign insurer; COMMUNITYASSOCIATION
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA IN THE MATTER OF: JOHN and MARGARET MEURRENS, CASE NO. BK96-81457 DEBTOR A97-8069 JOHN and MARGARET MEURRENS, CH. 13 Plaintiff vs. UNITED
Case 3:09-cv-01222-MMH-JRK Document 33 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 3:09-cv-1222-J-34JRK
Walker v. Transworld Systems, Inc. Doc. 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION NEVADA WALKER, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:14-cv-588-T-30MAP TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE : CIVIL ACTION INSURANCE COMPANY, : Plaintiff, : : v. : NO. 98-2647 : HARLEYSVILLE INSURANCE : COMPANY
Case 11-01923-EPK Doc 38 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 9 [Tagged Opinion] ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on November 17, 2011. Erik P. Kimball, Judge United States Bankruptcy Court UNITED STATES
Case 3:11-cv-01234-MMH-MCR Document 25 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID 145 NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY FOR LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
CASE 0:08-cv-01383-JNE-FLN Document 128 Filed 03/03/10 Page 1 of 7 Marquette Business Credit, Inc., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA v. Civil No. 08-1383 (JNE/FLN) ORDER International
Case 4:14-cv-00283 Document 10 Filed in TXSD on 07/31/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SELDA SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-14-283 WELLS FARGO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THERESA KELLY : CIVIL ACTION : vs. : : NO. 00-CV-5583 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOYNER, J. April, 2001
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOAN FALLOWS KLUGE, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. L-10-00022 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Joan Fallows
Case 2:12-cv-02071-SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 12-2071 BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS,
CASE 0:11-cv-00841-ADM-AJB Document 84 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Midas Life Settlements, LLC, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION v. AND ORDER Civil No. 11-841
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION CANDY TUCKER, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 1:06-CV-19 CAS ) WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC Filed: October 16, 2002 SUPERIOR COURT DIANE MULIERO, Executrix of the : C.A. No. 99-2703 Estate of MATTHEW MULIERO, And : Individually Recognized
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA VISUAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., Defendant CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-1877
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION DIAMOND STATE INSURANCE CO., : April Term, 2000 Plaintiff, : v. : No. 0395 : NUFAB CORP.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION JASON LONG, Plaintiff, v. NO. 0:00-CV-000 ABC THE CHABON GROUP, INC., Defendant. DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT