1 Case 4:14-cv Document 30 Filed in TXSD on 04/21/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR CO., et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Now before the court is defendant and counter-plaintiff Olshan Foundation Repair Co. s ( Olshan ) motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 23. After considering the motion, response, reply, and applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the motion should be DENIED. I. BACKGROUND This is an insurance dispute in which plaintiff and counter-defendant Admiral Insurance Company ( Admiral ) seeks a declaration that it is not required to indemnify Olshan for the entirety of damages assessed against Olshan in an arbitration award. Olshan seeks a declaration stating the opposite. The damages awarded by the arbitrator stem from a series of events beginning in late Dkt. 1 at 2. From January 1, 2000 through March 1, 2003, Olshan was insured under three commercial general liability policies issued by Admiral. Id. In June 2007, Mary Kay Dauria filed a lawsuit against Olshan alleging several causes of action stemming from work Olshan did to repair her foundation in The parties agreed to arbitrate Dauria s claims, and the arbitrator issued an award in Dauria s favor. The arbitrator s award included extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, which have been submitted to the court by both parties. Dkt. 23-1; Dkt
2 Case 4:14-cv Document 30 Filed in TXSD on 04/21/15 Page 2 of 9 The following summary of relevant facts is taken from the arbitrator s findings of fact. Id. In September 2000, Dauria employed Olshan to repair her foundation. Id. 8. During the repair, Olshan identified a leak in Dauria s pluming, which it repaired. Id. Olshan also replaced plumbing lines serving an upstairs bathroom and represented that the work was complete. Id 9. In September 2001, Dauria noticed discoloration of her downstairs parquet floor, and in November 2001, she noticed that her floor and sheetrock were wet. Id Dauria called Olshan to report the problem, and Olshan sent Rich LaPar to investigate the water damage. Upon inspection, LaPar determined that the tunnels used by Olshan to complete the foundation repair were filled with water, so Olshan refilled the tunnels in question. Id. Olshan paid Dauria $ towards her flooring repairs, and told her that they would pay more once the repairs were actually done. Id. 15. During October 2002, the floors began to buckle again, water seeped through the cracks, and mildew began growing in the home. Id. 16. Olshan dug a tunnel to pump water, but the problem worsened. Id. Dauria consulted with several plumbers, and one of them found a problem with the upstairs plumbing that Olshan had previously repaired. Id. 17. The arbitrator found that Olshan failed to re-plumb the upstairs bathroom into the main sewer line. Id. Olshan made the plumbing repairs in January 2003 and told Dauria to wait six to twelve months before having additional repairs evaluated. Id. 20. Dauria waited until March 2004, and contacted Olshan about assessing and paying for the damages to her home. Olshan hired an engineering firm to inspect the residence and provide a report on necessary repairs. Id. 21. Between July 2004 and January 2005, Olshan conducted several more foundation repairs. However, Olshan did not repair any of the other damaged parts of Dauria s home. In August 2006, Dauria hired her own engineer to investigate the damages. Id. 30. During 2005 and 2006, Olshan had not been responsive to Dauria s requests for repairs. Id. 26. In 2
3 Case 4:14-cv Document 30 Filed in TXSD on 04/21/15 Page 3 of 9 October 2006, Dauria met with Olshan s general manager, Nick Meador, who agreed to come to her home. Id. 28. When Meador came to Dauria s home with LaPar, LaPar asked Dauria why Olshan should be required to pay for her damaged home and indicated that Olshan would never agree to pay for the damages Dauria was asserting. Id. 29. The arbitrator found that this was in direct contradiction to Olshan s previous promises that it would address the problems with Dauria s home. Id. 30. The arbitrator found Olshan responsible for nearly $900, in damages and attorneys fees and determined that Olshan committed acts of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and breach of contract. Id. 49. The arbitrator found that Olshan s acts of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and breach of contract were all proximate causes of Dauria s damages, which included the cost to tear down and rebuild her home, destruction of personal property, moving expenses, temporary house expenses, costs, and attorneys fees. Id Olshan seeks summary judgment on Admiral s claim for declaratory judgment as well as its own counterclaim for declaratory judgment. II. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Carrizales v. State Farm Lloyds, 518 F.3d 343, 345 (5th Cir. 2008). The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; there must be an absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, , 106 S. Ct (1986). An issue is material if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action. Burrell v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up 3
4 Case 4:14-cv Document 30 Filed in TXSD on 04/21/15 Page 4 of 9 Bottling Grp., Inc., 482 F.3d 408, 411 (5th Cir. 2007). [A]nd a fact is genuinely in dispute only if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Fordoche, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 463 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2006). The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of all evidence demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct (1986). Only when the moving party has discharged this initial burden does the burden shift to the non-moving party to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 322. If the moving party fails to meet this burden, it is not entitled to a summary judgment, and no defense to the motion is required. Id. For any matter on which the non-movant would bear the burden of proof at trial..., the movant may merely point to the absence of evidence and thereby shift to the non-movant the burden of demonstrating by competent summary judgment proof that there is an issue of material fact warranting trial. Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Avenell, 66 F.3d 715, (5th Cir. 1995); see also Celotex, 477 U.S. at To prevent summary judgment, the non-moving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmovant. Envtl. Conservation Org. v. City of Dallas, Tex., 529 F.3d 519, 524 (5th Cir. 2008). The court must review all of the evidence in the record, but make no credibility determinations or weigh any evidence; disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe; and give credence to the evidence favoring the non-moving party as well as to the evidence supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeached. Moore v. Willis Ind. Sch. 4
5 Case 4:14-cv Document 30 Filed in TXSD on 04/21/15 Page 5 of 9 Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 874 (5th Cir. 2000). However, the non-movant cannot avoid summary judgment simply by presenting conclusory allegations and denials, speculation, improbable inferences, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumentation. TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James of Wash., 276 F.3d 754, 759 (5th Cir. 2002); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). By the same token, the moving party will not meet its burden of proof based on conclusory bald assertions of ultimate facts. Gossett v. Du-Ra-Kel Corp., 569 F.2d 869, 872 (5th Cir. 1978); see also Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1221 (5th Cir. 1985). III. ANALYSIS Olshan seeks summary judgment on its indemnity claim against Admiral. [An] insurer s duty to indemnify is determined based on the facts actually established in the underlying suit. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Nat l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 334 S.W.3d 217, 219 (Tex. 2011). Olshan contends that the facts found by the arbitrator require coverage given the language of the policy. Under the policies, Admiral will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this insurance applies. Dkts at 8; 24-4 at 7; 24-5 at 7. The policies limit coverage to instances where the bodily injury or property damage is caused by an occurrence that takes place in the coverage territory ; and... [t]he bodily injury or property damage occurs during the policy period. Id. Under the policies, property damage is defined as physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property. Dkts at 19; 24-4 at 18; 24-5 at 18. Occurrence is defined as an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially general harmful conditions. Id. Olshan argues that the damage to Dauria s home qualifies as covered property damage, and the failure to properly repair the sewer lines in 2000 was a covered occurrence. Here, the initial failure to reconnect the sewer line occurred in 2000, during 5
6 Case 4:14-cv Document 30 Filed in TXSD on 04/21/15 Page 6 of 9 the policy period. Although the damage to Dauria s home continued to worsen for several years, Olshan contends that the damage was during the policy period because the initial damage occurred during a period of coverage. Admiral opposes Olshan s motion for summary judgment on several grounds. Resolution of Olshan s motion requires two separate inquires. First, has Admiral presented evidence that Olshan s damages were due in whole or in part to a non-covered peril? Second, if a non-covered peril was a proximate cause of Olshan s damages, is Admiral still required to indemnify Olshan? As fully analyzed below, the court finds that Admiral has presented evidence sufficient to defeat summary judgment showing that Olshan s damages were caused, in part, by a non-covered event and that Admiral is not required to indemnify Olshan for the portion of its damages caused by noncovered acts. A. Covered or Non-Covered Event Admiral s Original Complaint alleges that several policy exclusions preclude indemnity in this case. However, because the court finds that Admiral has presented sufficient evidence that the policy does not cover Olshan s acts of fraud, consideration of each and every one of Admiral s alleged exclusions is unnecessary to resolve Olshan s motion for summary judgment. Very plainly, the policy only provides coverage for an occurrence, and occurrence is defined as an accident. Fraud is not an accident, and damages stemming from an act of fraud are not covered by the policy. B. Independent or Concurrent Causation The court must next determine whether Admiral is required to indemnify in spite of the arbitrator s finding of fraud. The arbitrator found that Olshan s fraud, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract each proximately caused Dauria s damages. Assuming arguendo that the initial failure to connect the upstairs plumbing is a covered occurrence, Admiral 6
7 Case 4:14-cv Document 30 Filed in TXSD on 04/21/15 Page 7 of 9 argues that the damages to Dauria s home were concurrently caused by covered and non-covered acts and that Olshan is responsible for segregating the damages arising from each. Olshan argues that the covered and non-covered events independently caused Dauria s damages and that Admiral is required to indemnify Olshan regardless of the arbitrator s finding of fraud. Texas law distinguishes between cases involving separate and independent causation and those involving concurrent causation when both covered and non-covered events cause an injury. Utica Nat. Ins. Co. of Tex. v. Am. Indem. Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2004). In cases involving separate and independent causation, the covered and the excluded event each independently cause the [insured s] injury, and the insurer must provide coverage despite the exclusion. Id. (citing Guaranty Nat l Ins. Co. v. N. River Ins. Co., 909 F.2d 133, 137 (5th Cir. 1990)). In cases involving concurrent causation, the excluded and covered events combine to cause the [insured s] injuries. Because the causes cannot be separated, the exclusion is triggered. Id. (citing Travelers Indem. Co. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 166 F.3d 761, (5th Cir. 1999)). Olshan argues that the fraud and failure to reconnect the plumbing were independent causes, either one of which would have caused Dauria s injury. Dkt. 24 at 17. In support of this argument, Olshan relies on the North River case. In North River, a hospital patient committed suicide by jumping out a window. N. River, 909 F.2d at 137. The court found that the suicide was proximately caused by both the hospital s failure to supervise the patient, a non-covered act, and the hospital s failure to secure its windows, a covered act. Id. Because the two causes were separate and independent, the court held that the insurer must provide coverage despite the exclusion. Id. Olshan relies on the arbitrator s characterization of both its fraud and negligence as proximate causes of Dauria s injury to make an analogy to the facts of North River. 7
8 Case 4:14-cv Document 30 Filed in TXSD on 04/21/15 Page 8 of 9 The court finds North River inapplicable to the facts of this case. In North River, a jury found that the hospital failed to properly maintain its windows a covered act. 909 F.2d at 134. The jury also found that the hospital failed to properly monitor the patient who committed suicide a noncovered act. Id. The court found that the hospital s failures were independent causes and that either one of the acts, without the other, could have caused the loss. Id. Olshan s argument does not differentiate between independent acts and independent causes. Olshan s failure to connect the plumbing, and its fraud are clearly independent acts. However, that does not mean that they are independent causes. Olshan s failure to connect the plumbing would not have caused near the quantum of damages awarded to Dauria if it had not been followed by Olshan s fraud, perpetrated over a number of years while Dauria s home continued to suffer additional damage. While Olshan s covered and non-covered acts are independent acts, the causation is concurrent. Under the doctrine of concurrent causation, when covered and non-covered perils combine to create a loss, the insured is entitled to recover that portion of the damage caused solely by the covered peril. Allison v. Fire Ins. Exchange, 98 S.W.3d 227, 259 (Tex. App. Austin 2002, pet. granted, judgm t vacated w.r.m.). Here, Olshan s failure to connect the plumbing line combined with Olshan s fraud and breach of contract to cause the entirety of Dauria s damages. Therefore, Olshan may only recover the amount of damage caused solely by its covered acts. Wallis v. United Servs. Auto. Ass n, 2 S.W.3d 300, (Tex. App. San Antonio 1999, pet. denied). The burden is on Olshan to prove coverage. Id. Olshan must therefore present some evidence upon which the jury can allocate the damages attributable to the covered peril. Id. Allocation is central to Olshan s claim for coverage, and its failure to carry the burden of proof on allocation is fatal to the claim. Id. Olshan must attempt to segregate the loss caused by the covered peril from the loss covered by the 8
9 Case 4:14-cv Document 30 Filed in TXSD on 04/21/15 Page 9 of 9 excluded peril. Allison, 98 S.W. 3d at 259 (ciring Wallis, 2 S.W.3d at ). Olshan s motion does not attempt to segregate the damages caused by covered and non-covered acts. Accordingly, the motion must be denied. IV. CONCLUSION Because Olshan has not shown that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, its motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 23) is DENIED. It is so ORDERED. Signed at Houston, Texas on April 21, Gray H. Miller United States District Judge 9
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 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 4:13-cv-03228 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/04/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION DAVID W. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-13-3228 WELLS
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 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
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
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 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 1:12-cv-01164-LY Document 38 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION CARONARDA FERNANDA BENBOW V. A-12-CV-1164 LY LIBERTY MUTUAL
Case 3:08-cv-00486-G -BF Document 19 Filed 07/10/08 Page 1 of 13 PageID 340 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MARK ROTELLA, ET AL., VS. Plaintiffs, MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY
Case 3:05-cv-02361-M Document 24 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1 of 8 PageID 623 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION RANDY OLDHAM, Plaintiff, v. No. 3:05-CV-2361-M
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:01 CV 726 DDN VENETIAN TERRAZZO, INC., Defendant. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Pursuant
IN THE 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,
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
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,
Case 4:11-cv-03061 Document 276 Filed in TXSD on 06/24/14 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-11-3061
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 1:07-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 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 4:10-cv-01249 Document 103 Filed in TXSD on 10/09/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION TOP PEARL, LTD., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-10-1249 COSA
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.
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
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;
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 1:06-cv-00524-DAE -BMK Document 28 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 405 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation,
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 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY WESTFIELD INSURANCE ) COMPANY, INC., ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) C.A. No. N14C-06-214 ALR ) MIRANDA & HARDT ) CONTRACTING AND BUILDING
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 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 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.
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
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
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,
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.
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 1:08-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.
Case 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9 WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. JAMES CZECH and WILLIAMS BUILDING COMPANY, INC., Defendants. United States District Court
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-3601 J.E. Jones Construction Co.; The Jones Company Custom Homes, Inc., Now known as REJ Custom Homes, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Appeal from
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 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
Case 8:12-cv-01398-MSS-TBM Document 28 Filed 05/29/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID 440 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION JENNIFER CUNNINGHAM, and BARRY CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiffs,
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.
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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA INFINITY INDEMNITY : INSURANCE COMPANY, : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, : : v. : : JANNETTE GONZALEZ, et al., : No. 11-4922 Defendants.
Case: 13-14238 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-14238 D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cv-01228-HGD MARK A. DOWDY, versus SUZUKI
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,
Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed August 16, 2001. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-00-00177-CV HENRY P. MASSEY AND ANN A. MASSEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF COURTNEY
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
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: 09-20311 Document: 00511062202 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 25, 2010 Charles
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY : MAY TERM, 2004 & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, : No. 0621
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ) CHARLES HONEYCUTT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) NO. 02-2710 Ml/V ) FIRST FEDERAL BANK, a FSB d/b/a ) First Federal
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
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,
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,
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 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 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
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
Writ of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed December 3, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01457-CV IN RE SOUTHPAK CONTAINER CORPORATION AND CLEVELAND
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL Plaintiff v. COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY JOSEPH ROCCO & SONS d/b/a/ HAYDEN CONSTRUCTION, CO.
Scheef & Stone, L.L.P. et al v. Foels Doc. 107 Civil Action No. 13-cv-01611-REB-CBS SCHEEF & STONE, LLP, and GRADY DICKENS, v. Plaintiffs, SUSANNA E. FOELS, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D December 18, 2009 No. 09-10562 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk JM WALKER
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
Case 8:10-cv-00313-SCB-AEP Document 47 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 12 PageID 370 AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. Case No.:
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 13 2114 For the Seventh Circuit BLYTHE HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, et al., Plaintiffs Appellants, v. JOHN A. DEANGELIS, et al., Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the
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 2:11-cv-06387-LAS Document 28 Filed 12/14/12 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JONATHAN VISCOUNTE and : JEAN VISCOUNTE, : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs,
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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 8:03CV165 Plaintiff, v. WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY and/or OMAHA WOODMEN LIFE INSURANCE
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
Reverse and Render in part; Affirm in part; Opinion Filed December 29, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01546-CV OKLAHOMA SURETY COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee
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,
Case 2:09-cv-03862-MLCF-KWR Document 327 Filed 07/21/11 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA B&S EQUIPMENT CO., INC. CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 09-3862 c/w 10-832 10-1168 10-4592
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.
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,
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 PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION DIAMOND STATE INSURANCE CO., : April Term, 2000 Plaintiff, : v. : No. 0395 : NUFAB CORP.
Appellate Case: 12-1186 Document: 01019007431 Date Filed: 02/25/2013 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit LLOYD LAND; EILEEN LAND, Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Case 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 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
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,
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.