1 CASE 0:10-cv RHK-JJG Document 46 Filed 08/30/11 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Owners Insurance Company, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, v. Plaintiffs, Civ. No (RHK/JJG) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER European Auto Works, Inc. d/b/a Autopia, Percic Enterprises, Inc., Defendants. Timothy P. Tobin, Gislason & Hunter LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Plaintiffs. David M. Oppenheim, Anderson & Wanca, Rolling Meadows, Illinois, Jenneane L. Jansen, Jansen & Palmer LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Brant D. Penney, Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, St. Paul, Minnesota, for Defendants. INTRODUCTION In this action, Plaintiffs Owners Insurance Co. ( Owners ) and Auto-Owners Insurance Co. ( Auto-Owners ) (collectively, the Insurers ) dispute coverage under policies they issued to Defendant European Auto Works, Inc. d/b/a Autopia ( Autopia ). The action arises out of an underlying lawsuit against Autopia by Defendant Percic Enterprises, Inc. ( Percic ) for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA ). 1 The Insurers seek a declaration that their policies do not cover damages 1 Although there are two Defendants in this action, the dispute turns on whether there is coverage under Defendant Autopia s insurance policy. Percic is joined as a Defendant because it was the
2 CASE 0:10-cv RHK-JJG Document 46 Filed 08/30/11 Page 2 of 12 arising from TCPA violations and that they are not obligated to defend or indemnify Autopia. Each side has moved for summary judgment. For the reasons below, the Court will deny the Insurers Motion, grant Autopia s Motion, and determine coverage exists. BACKGROUND The relevant facts are undisputed. Percic sued Autopia in Hennepin County, Minnesota District Court, alleging that it had received an unsolicited faxed advertisement from Autopia in December 2005, in violation of the TCPA. The TCPA prohibits us[ing] any telephone facsimile machine... to send, to a[nother] telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement. 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C) (emphasis added). Percic claimed it had not given Autopia permission to send it faxed advertisements, and thus Autopia violated the statute. In November 2009, it brought the underlying action on behalf of itself and a class of other recipients of similar unsolicited faxed advertisements from Autopia. For its part, Autopia maintained that it had no intent to send unsolicited faxes. It claims to have paid a third party, Business to Business Solutions ( Business to Business ), to send out 5,000 advertisements. Autopia designed the advertisements, and Business to Business faxed them to numerous recipients, including Percic. Business to Business purportedly represented to Autopia that it could conduct a fax-advertising program that complied with faxing guidelines, and that it would send ads only to consenting recipients. opposing party in the underlying litigation. Accordingly, for ease of reference in this Order, the Court will refer to Defendants collectively as Autopia. 2
3 CASE 0:10-cv RHK-JJG Document 46 Filed 08/30/11 Page 3 of 12 The parties reached a settlement in the underlying lawsuit, and the state court approved it and entered judgment against Autopia and in favor of the plaintiff class in the amount of $1,951,500. (Def. Opp n Mem. Ex. A, G.) This amount represents $500 per fax for 3,903 faxes plaintiffs received from Autopia, each of which constituted a violation of the TCPA. The state court s Order provided, pursuant to the parties agreement, that [t]he Judgment shall be satisfied only against the Insurers through the proceeds of [Autopia] s insurance policies. (Id.) It also determined that Autopia did not willfully or knowingly violate the TCPA. (Id. 9(f).) At all relevant times, Autopia was insured by Owners and Auto-Owners. Owners insured Autopia under a tailored protection policy, which included a commercial general liability ( CGL ) policy and a garage policy. 2 Autopia was also covered by a commercial umbrella policy issued by Auto-Owners, which provided additional coverage for claims exceeding the limits in the CGL policy. In the instant action, the Insurers seek a declaration that there is no coverage under Autopia s insurance policies for the claims in the underlying action and they are not obligated to pay the settlement amount. Autopia argues, however, that the claims in the underlying action were covered under two separate policy provisions of the CGL policy: one providing coverage for property damage, and the other covering advertising injury. 2 At oral argument, both sides represented that there would be no need to address whether there is coverage under the garage policy if the Court were to determine coverage existed under the CGL policy. Because it finds coverage under the CGL policy, the Court does not address the garage policy. 3
4 CASE 0:10-cv RHK-JJG Document 46 Filed 08/30/11 Page 4 of 12 Because the Court finds the issue of advertising-injury coverage dispositive here, it sets forth only the facts relevant to that provision. With respect to advertising injury, the CGL policy provides: [Owners] will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of... advertising injury to which this coverage part applies. * * * This insurance applies to... Advertising injury caused by an offense committed in the course of advertising your goods, products, or services. (Id. Ex. C. at 15.) It defines an advertising injury as an injury arising out of one or more of the following offenses... (b) Oral or written publication of material that violates a person s right of privacy (id. at 21), but it does not define the terms publication or privacy. With respect to the amount of coverage, the CGL policy provides that the amount [Owners] will pay for damages is limited as described in the LIMITS OF INSURANCE (SECTION III). (Id. at 11.) Section III of the policy, in turn, provides that the limits of insurance are shown in the Declarations (id. at 18), and the CGL Declarations list a $1,000,000 general aggregate limit on the insurance coverage. (Id. at 7.) This aggregate limit appears to have been doubled by an endorsement for the relevant policy period. (Def. Mem. in Supp. Ex. G, at AUTO00309.) Additionally, the umbrella policy provides coverage for amounts exceeding the aggregate limits of the CGL policy. The applicable clauses in the CGL policy and the umbrella policy provide the same coverage, and the Insurers conceded at oral argument that if there is coverage under the CGL policy, there 4
5 CASE 0:10-cv RHK-JJG Document 46 Filed 08/30/11 Page 5 of 12 is also coverage under the umbrella policy. Thus, there is no dispute that the coverage limits are sufficient under either the CGL policy, or the CGL policy plus the umbrella policy, to indemnify Autopia for the entire settlement amount in the underlying action. When the underlying lawsuit was commenced, Autopia tendered defense of the action to the Insurers. They responded that they could not conclude that none of the claims in this matter could give rise to a duty to indemnity, and acknowledged their obligation to defend Autopia until such time as the facts establish that there is no arguable basis for coverage. (Lipschultz Aff. Ex. C.) A few months later, the Insurers initiated the instant action, seeking a declaration that there was no coverage under their policies for the underlying claims against Autopia. Each side has now moved for summary judgment on the issue of coverage. A hearing was held on these Motions on August 23, 2011, and the matter is ripe for decision. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is proper if, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, 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(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, (1986). The moving party bears the burden of showing that the material facts in the case are undisputed. Id. at 322; Whisenhunt v. Sw. Bell Tel., 573 F.3d 565, 568 (8th Cir. 2009). The Court must view the evidence, and the inferences that may be reasonably drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Weitz Co., LLC v. Lloyd s of London, 574 F.3d 885, 892 (8th Cir. 2009); Carraher v. Target Corp., 503 F.3d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 2007). The nonmoving party may not rest on 5
6 CASE 0:10-cv RHK-JJG Document 46 Filed 08/30/11 Page 6 of 12 mere allegations or denials, but must show through the presentation of admissible evidence that specific facts exist creating a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986); Wingate v. Gage Cnty. Sch. Dist., No. 34, 528 F.3d 1074, (8th Cir. 2008). Where, as here, the Court confronts cross-motions for summary judgment, this approach is only slightly modified. When considering Defendants Motion, the Court views the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, and when considering Plaintiffs Motion, the Court views the record in the light most favorable to Defendants. Either way, summary judgment is proper if the record demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Seaworth v. Messerli, Civ. No , 2010 WL , at *3 (D. Minn. Sept. 7, 2010) (Kyle, J.) (citations omitted), aff d, No , 2011 WL (8th Cir. Mar. 15, 2011). ANALYSIS State law governs the interpretation of insurance policies. Nat l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Terra Indus., Inc., 346 F.3d 1160, 1164 (8th Cir. 2003). Under Minnesota law, 3 interpreting an insurance policy is a question of law for the Court. Watson v. United Servs. Auto. Ass n, 566 N.W.2d 683, 688 (Minn. 1997). When policy language is unambiguous, it is interpreted in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Glass Serv. Co., 683 N.W.2d 792, 799 (Minn. 2004). When an insurance policy s language is ambiguous, however, the Court will generally 3 Neither party suggests that any other state s law applies in this case. See BBSerCo, Inc. v. Metrix Co., 324 F.3d 955, 960 n.3 (8th Cir. 2003) (law of forum state applies by default where parties do not raise choice-of-law issue). 6
7 CASE 0:10-cv RHK-JJG Document 46 Filed 08/30/11 Page 7 of 12 construe that language against the drafter (the insurer) and in favor of the insured. Nathe Bros., Inc. v. Am. Nat l Fire Ins. Co., 615 N.W.2d 341, 344 (Minn. 2000). Furthermore, when an insurer argues that an exclusion bars coverage, the burden is on the insurer to establish that the exclusion applies. SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 536 N.W.2d 305, (Minn. 1995). Autopia argues there is coverage under both the property-damage provision and the advertising-injury provision. The Insurers disagree, arguing that neither covers TCPA violations. For the reasons set forth below, the Court determines that there is coverage under the advertising-injury provision; accordingly, it need not reach the coverage issues with respect to the property-damage provision. Autopia argues that the Insurers are obligated to provide coverage because the TCPA claim in the underlying action involved advertising injury, which is covered by the policy. The CGL and umbrella policies cover advertising injuries that arise from oral or written publication of material that violates a person s right of privacy. 4 But the policies do not define publication or right of privacy. The parties dispute the meanings of these terms and whether the advertising-injury provision extends to the TCPA claim at 4 As an initial matter, the Court is not swayed by the Insurers argument that there can be no coverage because the named plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit, Percic, cannot claim a right to privacy as a corporation. Several courts have explicitly or implicitly rejected this argument in similar situations. See, e.g., Park Univ. Enters., Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, PA, 442 F.3d 1239, 1247 (10th Cir. 2006) (rejecting out of hand insurer s argument that there can be no coverage of TCPA claim where underlying plaintiff was a corporation); Res. Bankshares Corp. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 407 F.3d 631, 641 n.10 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting it was fair to assume that the class in the underlying action included natural persons as well as corporations); Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lou Fusz Auto. Network, Inc., 401 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff in underlying action was corporation, yet insurer had duty to defend TCPA claim). This Court does likewise. 7
8 CASE 0:10-cv RHK-JJG Document 46 Filed 08/30/11 Page 8 of 12 issue here. In the Court s view, coverage under the advertising-injury provision of the CGL and umbrella policies is appropriate. The Insurers first urge that there can be no coverage because the underlying lawsuit involved only a TCPA claim and a conversion claim, neither of which is a privacy tort, nor does either require proof of an invasion of privacy. The Court cannot agree. Because the policies do not define right of privacy, Minnesota law directs the Court to give the policy language its plain and ordinary meaning, Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 683 N.W.2d at 799, resolving ambiguities against the Insurers and in favor of Autopia, Nathe Bros., 615 N.W.2d at 344. The Eighth Circuit has determined that [l]ooking at how Congress described unsolicited fax advertisements, it is clear that Congress viewed violations of the [TCPA] as... invasions of privacy under the ordinary, lay meaning of the phrase. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lou Fusz Auto. Network, Inc., 401 F.3d 876, 881 (8th Cir. 2005). The policy here does not limit coverage to damages arising from specific causes of action but instead covers advertising injuries arising from a violation of the right of privacy. 5 The complaint in the underlying lawsuit alleged that Autopia violated the TCPA, averring that [Autopia] s faxes unlawfully interrupted Plaintiff s and other class members privacy interests in being left alone. (Def. Mem. in Supp. Ex. B 27.) In the Court s view, this is more than sufficient. See Valley Forge 5 Notably, the policy here differs from the one at issue in Ross v. Briggs and Morgan, 540 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. 1995), a case relied upon by the Insurers and emphasized at the hearing on these Motions. In Ross, the CGL policy provided coverage for advertising injury only if it were caused by one of five enumerated offenses, and the court noted that the duty to defend was not established because there was not a semantic connection between the policy s enumerated offenses and the claims made in the underlying case. 540 N.W.2d at
9 CASE 0:10-cv RHK-JJG Document 46 Filed 08/30/11 Page 9 of 12 Ins. Co. v. Swiderski Elecs., Inc., 860 N.E.2d 307, 317 (Ill. 2006) (holding that even where the underlying complaint made no mention of the right of privacy, a violation of privacy... is implicit in a TCPA fax-ad claim. ). The TCPA claims at issue involved violations of the right of privacy under the ordinary meaning of that phrase. The Insurers further contend, however, that even if an invasion of privacy were alleged in the underlying lawsuit, it cannot give rise to coverage because of the type of privacy invasion at issue. The legal concept of privacy encompasses interests in both secrecy and seclusion. E.g., Park Univ. Enters., Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, PA, 442 F.3d 1239, 1248 (10th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted); accord Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231, 233 (Minn. 1998) (recognizing four different privacy torts under Minnesota law: appropriation, publication of private facts, false-light publicity, and intrusion upon seclusion). In the Insurers view, unsolicited faxes invade only the privacy right of seclusion, yet the policies, by requiring publication (which the Insurers argue means making information known to third parties), only provide coverage for invasions of the privacy right of secrecy. Numerous courts have found advertising-injury coverage for TCPA claims based on the ordinary meaning of the terms publication and privacy. For instance, the Illinois Supreme Court in Valley Forge identified two common meanings of publication, one involving the communication of information to the public, and another referring simply to distributing copies. 860 N.E.2d at 316 (citing Webster s Third New International Dictionary 1836 (2002) and Black s Law Dictionary 1264 (8th ed. 2004)). It held that [b]y faxing advertisements to the proposed class of fax recipients... [the 9
10 CASE 0:10-cv RHK-JJG Document 46 Filed 08/30/11 Page 10 of 12 insured] published the advertisements both in the general sense of communicating information to the public and in the sense of distributing copies of the advertisements to the public. Id. at 317. Thus, coverage was appropriate. In another case involving a policy identical to Autopia s, the Tenth Circuit reached the same conclusion, determining that the term publication was ambiguous and could mean either communication of material to a third party (thus implicating secrecy) or the simple transmittal of material to a recipient (implicating seclusion). Park Univ., 442 F.3d at It affirmed the decision to construe this ambiguity against the insurer, finding it entirely reasonable to define publication as making something generally known and ruling that the policy provided coverage for seclusion interests as well as secrecy ones. Id. The Insurers acknowledge that there is a split on this issue, and they identify a number of cases that reach the opposite result. 6 Those cases rely upon the distinction between the privacy interests of secrecy and seclusion to find no coverage. See, e.g., Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Websolv Computing, Inc., 580 F.3d 543 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Am. States Ins. Co. v. Capital Assocs. of Jackson Cnty. Inc., 392 F.3d 939 (7th Cir. 2004)); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Bhd. Int l Corp., 319 Fed. App x 121 (3d Cir. 2009); Res. Bankshares Corp. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 407 F.3d 631 (4th Cir. 2005). In this Court s view, this distinction is based upon legalistic and technical definitions of 6 Many of these cases involved policy language distinguishable from Autopia s. For example, the Fourth Circuit found no coverage for TCPA claims where a policy covered injuries caused by making known to any person... material that violates a person s right of privacy. Res. Bankshares, 407 F.3d at
11 CASE 0:10-cv RHK-JJG Document 46 Filed 08/30/11 Page 11 of 12 privacy, rather than upon the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used in the policies. As the Tenth Circuit aptly noted: [t]he plain and ordinary meaning of privacy includes the right to be left alone. Certainly, the insurer could impose a more restrictive, technical and legal definition to the term privacy following that of the classic tort of invasion of secrecy interests or defamation. Such an approach, however, would construe the language of the contract from the vantage of an insurer or an attorney, rather than the insured. [The insurer] failed to provide specific terms in the policy to narrow the scope of privacy interest violations for which it intended to provide coverage, and we decline to permit it to do so now. Park Univ., 442 F.3d at 1250 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Likewise, the Insurers here could have included more restrictive definitions in their policies to narrow the scope of coverage to only certain types of privacy-rights violations, yet they did not do so, and the Court must interpret the policy language as it is written and construe ambiguities in favor of Autopia. See Ill. Farmers, 683 N.W.2d at 799; Nathe Bros., 615 N.W.2d at 344. The Court agrees with Valley Forge, Park University, and Lou Fusz, 7 and it determines that the TCPA claim at issue here arose from oral or written publication of material that violates a person s right of privacy, according to the plain and ordinary meaning of these words. Accordingly, coverage exists under the advertising-injury provisions of the CGL and umbrella policies. And because the Court 7 Notably, the policy language at issue in Lou Fusz, the Eighth Circuit case upon which Autopia heavily relies, is distinct from the language here since it does not include any requirement that the violation of the privacy right occur through publication. The Eighth Circuit did hold, however, that coverage was appropriate for TCPA violations under a policy provision covering injuries arising from invasions of privacy. 11
12 CASE 0:10-cv RHK-JJG Document 46 Filed 08/30/11 Page 12 of 12 determines that coverage exists under this policy provision, it need not address whether there would also be property-damage coverage under the policies. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 26) is DENIED, and Defendants Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 28) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs have a duty to indemnify Autopia pursuant to the CGL and umbrella policies. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: August 30, 2011 s/richard H. Kyle RICHARD H. KYLE United States District Judge 12
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 11-3068 Owners Insurance Company; Auto-Owners Insurance Company lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. European Auto Works, Inc., doing
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 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,
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
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
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
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: 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
October 2010 SURVEY OF CASES DISCUSSING THE MEANING OF THE WORD PERSON IN GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICIES California Illinois New Jersey Please note that statutes and case law vary from state to state
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: 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 2:06-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.
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) CITY OF LINCOLN V. DIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
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
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 DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARYLAND ACCOUNTING SERVICES, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CCB-11-CV-00145 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs
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
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
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 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,
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
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
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
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2013 Case Summaries Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
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
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 0:05-cv-02409-DSD-RLE Document 51 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 05-2409(DSD/RLE) Kristine Forbes (Lamke) and Morgan Koop, Plaintiffs, v.
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
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.
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 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
Streit et al v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION WESLEY and BARBARA STREIT, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No.
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 1:12-cv-21961-CMA Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2012 Page 1 of 12 360 CONDOMINIUM B ASSOCIATION, INC., vs. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. / UNITED
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A13-1302 Court of Appeals Anderson, J. Robert Meeker, et al., Respondents, vs. Filed: April 8, 2015 Office of Appellate Courts IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company,
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,
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
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
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
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 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY ATTORNEYS LIABILITY PROTECTION ) SOCIETY, INC., a Risk Retention Group, ) ) Plaintiff / Counterclaim ) Defendant, ) ) v. ) ) JAY
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 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
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,
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.
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Huizenga v. Auto-Owners Insurance, 2014 IL App (3d) 120937 Appellate Court Caption DAVID HUIZENGA and BRENDA HUIZENGA, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE,
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 A13-0804 Midland Funding, LLC, Respondent, vs. Marvin
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WEINSTEIN SUPPLY CORPORATION : : v. : CIVIL ACTION : HOME INSURANCE COMPANIES, : THE HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY, : No. 97-7195 THE
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY ELIZABETH RASKAUSKAS ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) C.A. No. CPU6-09-000991 GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE ) COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE ) DIRECT
Case 1:13-cv-00254-TWP-DKL Document 59 Filed 09/29/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, THE
Case 4:10-cv-03191 Document 19 Filed in TXSD on 06/02/11 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION AMERICAN WESTERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-0446 American Family Mutual Insurance Company,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added
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
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
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.
No. 2-15-0016 Opinion filed December 23, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ILLINOIS CASUALTY COMPANY, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Lake County. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-
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.
187 CASE 0:09-cv-00975-JRT-TNL Document 170 Filed 09/30/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA A.P.I., INC., ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST and A.P.I., INC., Civil No. 09-975 (JRT/JJG)
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,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., : Plaintiff, : v. : No. 3:00CV0459(RNC) JONATHON VITALE, LYNN VITALE : and RAVIZZA BROTHERS, INC., Defendants. : RULING
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
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,
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
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;
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1635 WELLS FARGO EQUIPMENT FINANCE, INCORPORATED, v. Plaintiff - Appellee, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; STATE FARM MUTUAL
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 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.
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.
Page 1 1 of 2 DOCUMENTS RIVERDALE PEAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation, LLOYD LAND, and EILEEN LAND, Plaintiffs, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan Company, Defendant.
Docket No. 107472. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. KEY CARTAGE, INC., et al. Appellees. Opinion filed October 29, 2009. JUSTICE BURKE delivered
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: RICK D. MEILS WILLIAM M. BERISH JOHN W. MERVILDE Meils Thompson Dietz & Berish Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: JUSTIN STIMSON Bloomington, Indiana
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
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 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: 1:10-cv-02697 Document #: 65 Filed: 08/16/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:659 10-2697.111-RSK August 16, 2011 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ROSLYN
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
Case: 14-40512 Document: 00513239934 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 21, 2015 MARTIN
Pennsylvania Law on Advertising Injury Summary of Cases Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Brotech Corp., 857 F. Supp. 423 (E.D. Pa. 1994), aff'd, 60 F.3d 813, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 15297 (3d Cir. May 12, 1995)
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.