1 Case 2:12-cv 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: BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS, INC., ET AL. SECTION: R(2) ORDER AND REASONS This insurance coverage dispute concerns two claims-made liability policies issued to plaintiff Bollinger 1 --one each by defendants American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company and Illinois National Insurance Company. Defendant AIG Claims, Inc. administered both policies. The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. 2 For the following reasons, the Court denies Bollinger's motion and grants the motion filed by American International, Illinois National, and AIG. 1 "Bollinger" refers collectively to Bollinger Shipyards, Inc.; Bollinger Shipyards Lockport, L.L.C.,; and Halter Bollinger Joint Venture, L.L.C. 2 R. Doc. 250 (Illinois National, American International, and AIG); R. Doc. 254 (Bollinger). Illinois National, American International, and AIG also previously filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Because this order resolves all of Bollinger's claims against Illinois National, American International, and AIG, it moots their motion to dismiss.
2 Case 2:12-cv SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 2 of 15 I. BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background This insurance coverage dispute arises out of a lawsuit brought against Bollinger by the United States under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729, et seq., regarding a ship conversion project that Bollinger completed for the United States Coast Guard. The Court has described the factual and procedural history of the underlying suit elsewhere 3 and will not repeat it here. In an effort to obtain coverage for the costs of defending the underlying suit, Bollinger filed claims with and eventually sued a number of its insurers in addition to the insurers involved in these motions. The Court consolidated the suits against the other insurers with a declaratory judgment action brought against Bollinger by yet another insurance carrier. 4 After Bollinger sued the three defendants involved in these motions in state court, they removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C The suit was then consolidated with the other insurance actions 3 See, e.g., R. Doc See R. Docs. 1, 6, See Bollinger Shipyards, Inc., et al. v. Illinois National Insurance Co., et al., No. 14-cv-1377, R. Doc. 1. 2
3 Case 2:12-cv SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 3 of 15 pending before this Court. 6 Bollinger filed a motion to remand the suit, 7 which the Court denied. 8 B. Factual Background Two insurance policies are potentially relevant to Bollinger's coverage claims in this suit. First, American International insured Bollinger under a "Directors, Officers and Private Company Liability Insurance Policy" (commonly referred to as a "D&O policy"), with policy number and a "Policy Period" of December 31, 2005 to December 31, Second, Illinois National Insurance Company insured Bollinger under a D&O policy with policy number and a "Policy Period" of May 1, 2008 to May 1, The policies are substantively identical in all respects critical to the Court's analysis, so the Court summarizes their key terms together. The first page of both policies provides the following notice in boldface font: NOTICE: EXCEPT TO SUCH EXTENT AS MAY OTHERWISE BE PROVIDED HEREIN, THE COVERAGE OF THIS POLICY IS GENERALLY LIMITED TO LIABILITY FOR ONLY THOSE CLAIMS THAT ARE FIRST MADE AGAINST THE INSUREDS DURING THE POLICY PERIOD AND REPORTED IN WRITING TO THE INSURER PURSUANT TO THE TERMS 6 R. Doc R. Doc R. Doc R. Doc at R. Doc at 2. 3
4 Case 2:12-cv SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 4 of 15 HEREIN. PLEASE READ THE POLICY CAREFULLY AND DISCUSS THE COVERAGE THEREUNDER WITH YOUR INSURANCE AGENT OR BROKER. 11 Both policies go on to provide, in relevant part, that they will "pay the Loss of [Bollinger] arising from a... Claim first made [against Bollinger]... during the Policy Period or the Discovery Period 12 (if applicable) and reported to the Insurer pursuant to the terms of [the] policy." 13 "Claim" is a defined term meaning, among other things, "a written demand for monetary or non-monetary relief (including any request to toll or waive any statute of limitations)." 14 In the motions now before the Court, Bollinger asserts that the United States "first made" a covered "Claim" against it on two separate occasions. First, Bollinger contends that a "preserve evidence letter" dated December 14, 2006 constitutes a "Claim" falling within the policy period of American 11 R. Doc at 2; R. Doc at "Discovery Period" refers to an additional period of time that an insured can purchase after the expiration of a policy to report claims "otherwise covered by [the] policy" but not "first made" until the Discovery Period. See R. Doc at 34; R. Doc at 19. The motions before the Court concern Claims allegedly "first made" during the policy periods of the two policies at issue here, not during any subsequent "Discovery Period. In addition, Bollinger does not suggest that it purchased a Discovery Period for any of its policies. Therefore, the Discovery Period is irrelevant to these motions. 13 R. Doc at 6; R. Doc at R. Doc at 7; R. Doc at 8. 4
5 Case 2:12-cv SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 5 of 15 International Policy Number American International disputes that a preserve evidence letter qualifies as a "Claim" under the policy. Second, Bollinger contends that a Tolling Agreement that Bollinger entered into with the United States on December 23, 2008 also constitutes a "Claim." The Tolling Agreement falls within the policy period of Illinois National Policy Number American International, Illinois National, and AIG now move for summary judgment on all of Bollinger's claims against them on the ground that Bollinger did not report either the preserve evidence letter or the Tolling Agreement by the applicable deadlines, and that therefore neither alleged "Claim" is covered by their policies. Both policies define the period within which Claims must be reported to be covered. American International Policy Number states, in relevant part, that "as a condition precedent to the obligations of the Insurer under this policy,... all Claims shall be reported... anytime during the Policy Period... or... within 30 days after the end of the Policy Period." 15 Thus, the policy categorically excludes any claim not reported by January 30, 2007 (the last date of the Policy Period--December 31, plus 30 days). Similarly, Illinois National Policy Number states, in relevant part, that the Insureds "shall, as a condition precedent to the 15 R. Doc at 54. 5
6 Case 2:12-cv SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 6 of 15 obligations of the Insurer under this policy, give written notice" of a claim "in all events no later than... anytime during the Policy Period... or... within ninety (90) days after the end of the Policy Period." 16 Thus, the policy categorically excludes any claim not reported by July 30, 2009 (the last date of the Policy Period--May 1, plus 90 days). Bollinger points to evidence of a July 29, that it contends constitutes "written notice to AIG Claims, on behalf of [American International] and Illinois National" of the "claim... made against [Bollinger] by the United States." 17 Bollinger does not assert that any other notice was ever provided to any of its insurers. The insurance companies have refused to provide coverage, a defense, or reimbursement of any defense costs to Bollinger. Bollinger asks the Court to find as a matter of law that the D&O Policies entitle Bollinger to the defense costs it has incurred in the underlying suit. Bollinger also seeks an award of statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. 16 R. Doc at R. Doc at 2 (Bollinger's Statement of Uncontested Material Facts); R. Doc ( ). 6
7 Case 2:12-cv SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 7 of 15 II. STANDARD Summary judgment is warranted when the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). When assessing whether a dispute as to any material fact exists, the Court considers all of the evidence in the record but refrain[s] from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence. Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, (5th Cir. 2008). All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, but unsupported allegations or affidavits setting forth ultimate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment. Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Little, 37 F.3d at If the dispositive issue is one on which the moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. Int l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, (5th Cir. 1991). The nonmoving party can then defeat the motion by either countering with evidence sufficient to demonstrate the 7
8 Case 2:12-cv SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 8 of 15 existence of a genuine dispute of material fact, or showing that the moving party s evidence is so sheer that it may not persuade the reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in favor of the moving party. Id. at If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden by merely pointing out that the evidence in the record is insufficient with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who must, by submitting or referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists. See id. at 324. The nonmovant may not rest upon the pleadings, but must identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue for trial. See, e.g., id.; Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 ("Rule 56 'mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322)). III. DISCUSSION The parties agree that Louisiana law governs this case. In Louisiana, an insurance policy "should be construed by using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the 8
9 Case 2:12-cv SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 9 of 15 Civil Code." La. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 630 So. 2d 759, 763 (La. 1994). "The judicial responsibility in interpreting insurance contracts is to determine the parties' common intent." Id. (citing La. Civ. Code art. 2045). If the words of the contract are "clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences," the plain meaning of the contract prevails, and "no further interpretation may be made in search of the parties' intent." La. Civ. Code art. 2046; id. art (words of a contract should be given their "generally prevailing meaning," unless the words have acquired a technical meaning). If there is ambiguity in an insurance policy, the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the insured. La. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 630 So.2d at 764; see also La. Civ. Code art ("A contract executed in a standard form of one party must be interpreted, in case of doubt, in favor of the other party."). This rule of strict construction should be applied only if the contract is actually ambiguous; it does not authorize a perversion of language, or the exercise of inventive powers for the purpose of creating ambiguity where none exists. Reynolds v. Select Props., Ltd., 634 So. 2d 1180, 1183 (La. 1994) (quoting Union Ins. Co. v. Advance Coating Co., 351 So. 2d 1183, 1185 (La. 1977)); see also La. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 630 So. 2d at 764 ("When the language of an insurance policy is clear, courts lack the authority to change or alter its terms under the guise of 9
10 Case 2:12-cv SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 10 of 15 interpretation."). Moreover, "insurance companies have the right to limit coverage in any manner they desire, so long as the limitations do not conflict with statutory provisions or public policy. Reynolds, 634 So.2d at With these principles in mind, the Court turns to the policies at issue in these motions. Both American International and Illinois National insured Bollinger under claims-made D&O policies, which provided coverage for only those claims made within the policy period and reported either within the policy period or within a set number of days after the policy period ended. The parties appear to agree that the 2008 Tolling Agreement constitutes a claim, but they dispute whether the 2006 preserve evidence letter does. The Court need not decide if the letter is claim, however, because in any event, Bollinger did not provided timely notice of either alleged claim to its insurers. As summarized above, any claim falling under American International Policy Number had to be reported by January 30, 2007 to be covered, and any claim falling under Illinois National Policy Number had to be reported by July 30, 2009 to be covered. Bollinger has the burden of proof on the issue of whether it timely reported the "Claims." See Coleman v. Sch. Bd. of Richland Parish, 418 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp., 774 So. 2d 119, 124 (La. 2000)) (applying Louisiana law; "With respect to coverage, 10
11 Case 2:12-cv SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 11 of 15 the insured bears the burden of proving that the incident giving rise to a claim falls within the policy's terms."). But Bollinger provides no evidence that it gave any notice of any claim to any of its insurers prior to July 28, Thus, neither of the policies at issue here cover the underlying suit. Public policy supports this result. As the Louisiana Supreme Court has explained, "the purpose of the reporting requirement [in a claims-made policy] is to define the scope of coverage [purchased by the insured] by providing a certain date after which an insurer knows it is no longer liable under the policy." Gorman v. City of Opelousas, 148 So. 3d 888, 893 (La. 2014) (quoting Resolution Trust Corp. v. Ayo, 31 F.3d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1994)). "Once the policy period and reporting period expire, the insurer can 'close its books' on that policy." Id. For this reason, "such reporting requirements are strictly construed." Resolution Trust, 31 F.3d at 289 (applying Louisiana law). Because Bollinger did not comply with the reporting requirement under either policy, the policies do not cover Bollinger's costs in the underlying suit. In opposition, Bollinger argues that its "Policy Period has been extended year after year" by its repeated renewals of its D&O coverage. 18 Bollinger is incorrect. The Louisiana Supreme Court recently rejected as similar "merged into one" argument in 18 R. Doc at
12 Case 2:12-cv SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 12 of 15 Gorman, 148 So. 3d 888. There, an insured had a claim filed against it during one policy period but did not report the claim to its insurer until the following policy period. See id. at 893. As the Louisiana Supreme Court explained, each policy is separate, and the second policy "did not extend the policy period" of the first policy. Id. at 897; see also Specialty Food Sys., Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co. of Ill., 45 F. Supp. 2d 541 (E.D. La.) (applying Louisiana law and holding that an insured had not timely reported a claim that was first made against it during one policy's policy period but not reported until a second policy's policy period), aff'd, 200 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1999). Because Bollinger's renewals of its D&O coverage did not alter the defined policy periods of its individual policies, this argument fails. Similarly, Bollinger argues that the "Continuity Dates" of the policies somehow change the result. Bollinger is wrong. The Continuity Dates do not alter the relevant policy periods or the applicable reporting deadlines. Instead, they define the scope of the following exclusion from coverage: The insurer shall not be liable to make any payment for Loss in connection with a Claim made against an Insured:... (e) alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to as of the Continuity Date, any pending or prior: (1) litigation; or (2) administrative or regulatory proceeding or investigation of which an insured had notice, or alleging any Wrongful Act which is the same or Related Wrongful Act to [sic] that alleged in such 12
13 Case 2:12-cv SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 13 of 15 pending or prior litigation or administrative or regulatory proceeding or investigation. 19 Thus, the policies exclude from coverage claims arising out of, based on, or attributable to litigation or administrative proceedings that were pending before the Continuity Dates. But here, no one argues that the preserve evidence letter or the Tolling Agreement relate to litigation or other proceedings that predate the applicable Continuity Dates. Therefore, the Continuity Dates are irrelevant these motions. So this argument fails. Finally, Bollinger contends that a provision in the policies indicating that the insurers "shall advance... at the written request of the Insured, Defense Costs prior to the final disposition of a Claim" 20 requires a different result. But "Defense Costs" is a defined claim, which is limited to "reasonable and necessary fees, costs and expenses consented to by the Insurer." 21 Both policies specifically provide, in bold font, in the paragraph immediately following the section Bollinger cites, that "in all events the Insurer may withhold consent to any... Defense Costs, or any portion thereof, to the extent such Loss is not covered under the terms of this 19 R. Doc at 11-12; R. Doc at R. Doc at 17; R. Doc at 18 (emphasis added). 21 R. Doc at 7; R. Doc at 8. 13
14 Case 2:12-cv SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 14 of 15 policy." 22 The Court has just held that the defense costs sought by Bollinger for the underlying suit are not covered by American International's or Illinois National's policy, because Bollinger did not report the alleged claims during the applicable policy periods. Thus, neither company was obligated to consent to Bollinger's defense costs. District courts in other jurisdictions have reached a similar conclusion when interpreting nearly identical policy language. See, e.g., Brown v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 339 F. Supp. 2d 336 (D. Mass. 2004) (Kentucky law); Hurley v. Columbia Cas. Co., 976 F. Supp. 268 (D. Del. 1997) (Michigan law). Because the companies did not have a duty to advance costs not covered by their policies, this argument also fails. In sum, since Bollinger did not comply with its policies' reporting requirements, the policies at issue here do not cover the underlying suit. In addition, because the Court has determined that American International, Illinois National, and AIG are correct in their assessment that the policies do not cover the underlying suit, Bollinger's claim that it is entitled to penalties, fees, costs, and interest necessarily fails. IV. CONCLUSION 22 R. Doc at 17; R. Doc at
15 Case 2:12-cv SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 15 of 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Bollinger's motion for summary judgment and GRANTS the motion for summary judgment filed by Illinois National, American International, and AIG. The Court dismisses Illinois National, American International, and AIG from the case. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th day of February, SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15
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
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 2:14-cv-00218-SSV-SS Document 17 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LISA NASTASI, WIFE OF/AND GARY NASTASI CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 14-218 CHARLIE
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 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
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
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 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
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
Case 3:13-cv-00054 Document 120 Filed in TXSD on 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7 This case is being reviewed for possible publication by American Maritime Cases, Inc. ( AMC ). If this case is published in AMC s book
Case 2:07-cv-09711-EEF-SS Document 14 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA NATHAN GORDON * CIVIL ACTION * VERSUS * NUMBER: 07-9711 * FIDELITY NATIONAL INSURANCE
Case 2:12-cv-00811-MLCF-SS Document 47 Filed 06/05/13 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 13-95 c/w 12-811 SETTOON
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
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 ***********************************
Goodridge v. Hewlett Packard Company Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARLES GOODRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-07-4162 HEWLETT-PACKARD
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 94-11035 (Summary Calendar) GLEN R. GURLEY and JEAN E. GURLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal
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
Case :-cv-0-dgc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 WO Wintrode Enterprises Incorporated, v. PSTL LLC, et al., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Plaintiff, Defendants. No. CV--0-PHX-DGC
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
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.,
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
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
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
GAVIN'S ACE HARDWARE, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 2:11-cv-162-FtM-36SPC FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER
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 0:10-cv-00772-PAM-RLE Document 33 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Ideal Development Corporation, Mike Fogarty, J.W. Sullivan, George Riches, Warren Kleinsasser,
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,
3:12-cv-03107-SEM-BGC # 43 Page 1 of 26 E-FILED Thursday, 19 December, 2013 03:21:32 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
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
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;
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 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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EVELYN THOMAS v. COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-5372 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Kauffman, J. April 18, 2008
Case: 1:06-cv-06591 Document #: 106 Filed: 01/15/08 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION T. McGANN PLUMBING, INC., Plaintiff,
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
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,
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
Case 1:06-cv-01892-CKK Document 30 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 06 1892 (CKK) REVONET,
Case: 10-30886 Document: 00511566112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D August 9, 2011 Lyle
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.
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: 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,
Case 2:13-cv-03323-LMA-DEK Document 13 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA EXPRESS LIEN INC. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 13-3323 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CREDIT
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 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
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 2:08-cv-01700-NJB-KWR Document 641 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ATEL MARITIME INVESTORS, LP, et al. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS CASE NO. 08-1700 SEA
Case 3:05-cv-07309-JGC Document 170 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ) LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS ) OF OHIO, et al., ) Plaintiffs,
Case 4:06-cv-00191 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 05/25/06 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION BARBARA S. QUINN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-00191
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
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
Case 2:08-cv-01740-MLCF-DEK Document 37 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ARTHUR MONTEGUT, SR. CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 08-1740 BUNGE NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Case 2:06-cv-10929-LMA-DEK Document 23 Filed 01/29/07 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JOYCE HAMPTON, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION versus No. 06-10929 OWENS-ILLINOIS, ET AL.
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.
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
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION JANE M. LEWIS VERSUS PRESTIGE TITLE INCORPORATED, SOUTHERN MORTGAGE FINANCIAL GROUP, L.L.C. D/B/A FIDELITY LENDING (SOUTHERN), FIRST NATIONAL SECURITY CORPORATION N/K/A LITTON
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,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA INFINITY INDEMNITY : INSURANCE COMPANY, : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, : : v. : : JANNETTE GONZALEZ, et al., : No. 11-4922 Defendants.
Case 2:14-cv-00797-BMS Document 16 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN WESTERN : HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff,
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
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: 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
ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Hart v. Kieu Le, 2013 IL App (2d) 121380 Appellate Court Caption LYNETTE Y. HART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOAN KIEU LE, Defendant-Appellee. District & No. Second
Case 2:13-cv-02349-ILRL-KWR Document 31 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA PUBLIC PAYPHONE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 13-2349 WAL-MART STORES, INC.
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
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 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 SUMMIT CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. CASE NO. 8:13-CV-295-T-17TGW
Case 3:07-cv-00908-L Document 23 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 9 PageID 482 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., Plaintiff,
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
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.
Case 2:12-cv-02047-SRD-DEK Document 163 Filed 01/28/15 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ARCH SPECIALTY INS. CO. CIVIL ACTION a/s/o 2633 NAPOLEON LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MYRA SELESNY, Personal Representative of the Estate of ABRAHAM SELESNY, UNPUBLISHED April 8, 2003 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 236141 Oakland Circuit Court U.S. LIFE INSURANCE
Case 05-03652 Document 196 Filed in TXSB on 01/22/07 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: CHARLES A WATSON CASE NO: 04-46189 Debtor(s)
CASE 0:09-cv-00013-DWF-RLE Document 94 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Tri-Marketing, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Civil No. 09-13 (DWF/RLE) Plaintiff and
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.
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 DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE HERRICK GROUP & ASSOCIATES LLC : CIVIL ACTION : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 07-0628 : K.J.T., L.P., : Defendant : MEMORANDUM
CASE 0:10-cv-01132-MJD-FLN Document 106 Filed 06/06/11 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: Mirapex Products Liability Litigation 07-MD-1836 (MJD/FLN) This document relates
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 91-3583 RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION as Receiver for Security Homestead Federal Savings and Loan Association, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS JOHN J.
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.
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).
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.