1 /34 Case 3:08-cv HEH Document 50 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MINNESOTA LAWYERS MUTUAL ) INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ) Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-409-HEH MICHAEL D. HANCOCK, et al., Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION (Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment) This case involves a dispute over whether a legal malpractice insurance policy issued by Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company ("Minnesota Lawyers") provides coverage for a law firm and one of its partners. It is presently before the Court on Plaintiff Minnesota Lawyers' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 26) against all defendants, many of whom are former clients with potential or pending claims against the firm and at least one of its attorneys. Minnesota Lawyers and two defendants, N.J. Properties, LLC ("N.J. Properties") and Nayan K. Patel, have filed memoranda of law in support of their respective positions.' The Court heard oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion on February 12,2009. For the reasons detailed herein, the Court granted Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on February 23, Although Minnesota Lawyers seeks summary judgment against all named defendants in this declaratory judgment action, only N.J. Properties and Nayan Patel have responded to PlaintifI's Motion. ARer reviewing their submissions, the Court is satisfied that N.J. Properties and Nayan Pate1 have adequately briefed the pertinent factual and legal issues.
2 Case 3:08-cv HEH Document 50 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 2 of 15 I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background In January of 2006, two solo practitioners, Michael Hancock and Stephen Dalton, merged their law practices to form a firm that they named-unsurprisingly-dalton Hancock, PLLC (the "Firm"). PI. Br. Ex. B. Upon forming the Firm, Hancock executed an "Adding an Attorney" form on May 5,2006 to obtain malpractice insurance coverage under Dalton's existing "claims made" policy (the "Policy"), which was issued by Minnesota Lawyers2 See PI. Br. Ex. C. When he completed the form, Hancock represented to Minnesota Lawyers that he was "[un]aware of any incident which could reasonably result in a claim being made against" him. Comp Unbeknownst to both Minnesota Lawyers and Dalton, Hancock's representation was false. Beginning in February of 2005-over a year before he executed the Adding an Attorney form-and continuing through October of 2007, Hancock "embezzl[ed] money from [his] clients by moving money from [his] client escrow account to [his] operating account without [his] clients' authority and without having earned the money." PI. Br. Ex. A 2-3. Hancock used the money embezzled from his clients, in part, to cover the Firm's overhead and operating expenses. PI. Br. Ex. B at 61. Hancock now candidly admits his past embezzlement and acknowledges that his conduct made his representations to Minnesota Lawyers in the Adding an Attorney form '~alton, in his capacity as the Firm's "Managing Partner", also executed the Adding an Attorney form.
3 Case 3:08-cv HEH Document 50 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 3 of 15 false at the time they were made. Id. at Hancock voluntarily reported his misconduct and surrendered his law license to the Virginia State Bar on October 24, See P1. Br. Ex. I. A grand jury in Henrico County, Virginia subsequently indicted Hancock for embezzling funds belonging to Defendants Loretta Cook, Jay Patel, Nayan Patel, Josetta Neal, Deana Parker, and Gloria Dabbs. See PI. Br. Ex. J-N. Hancock has since pled guilty to these charges. See P1. Br. Ex. 0. Apparently, Dalton did not learn the specific details of his erstwhile partner's embezzlement until reviewing pleadings filed by the Virginia State Bar in the Circuit Court for the County of Henrico. Def. Br. Ex. A Several months prior to Hancock's admission, however, Dalton submitted an application (the "Application") to Minnesota Lawyers on March 5,2007 to renew the Policy for one year. In the Application, Dalton, on behalf of the Firm, certified that "the information previously supplied to [Minnesota Lawyers]" in the "firm's most recent application or addendums to the application"-including the Adding an Attorney form executed by Hancock in 2006-was still accurate. PI. Br. Ex. D. at 1. Also included in the Application was a representation stating that no "firm member [was] aware of any INCIDENT which could reasonably result in a claim being made against the firm or a member of the firm." Id. Dalton later discovered that these representations were falsee3 On June 21,2007, Dalton, acting as the "President" and "Managing Partner" of 'NO party contends, nor is there any evidence to suggest, that Dalton knew of Hancock's misdeeds prior to October 24,2007, when Hancock self-reported his embezzlement to the Virginia State Bar. 3
4 Case 3:08-cv HEH Document 50 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 4 of 15 the Firm and without personal knowledge of Hancock's malfeasance, executed a "Request-to-Issue" form in which he represented to Minnesota Lawyers that "there have been no significant changes in... any information contained in the previously submitted application(s)." PI. Br. Ex. E. Dalton, on behalf of the Firm, krther affirmed in the Request-to-Issue form that "the undersigned is not aware of any claims or circumstances that could result in claims or disciplinary actions that have not been reported to Minnesota Lawyers." Id. Relying on the Firm's prior representations, Minnesota Lawyers subsequently issued the Policy to the Firm for coverage from June 23,2007 to June 23, PI. Br. Ex. F at 2. The central issue before the Court is whether the misrepresentations made on behalf of the firm warrant rescission of the Policy or limitation of coverage. B. The Policv The Policy issued by Minnesota Lawyers was a "claims-made" policy which provided insurance coverage for damages resulting from any claim against the insured: (1) arising out of any act, error, or omission of the Insured... ; and (2) resulting from the rendering or failing to render Professional Services while engaged in the private practice of law. Compl. Ex. A at 1. The Policy, however, expressly excluded coverage for "any Claim for Damages arising out of the dishonest, criminal, malicious or deliberately fraudulent act, error, or omission of the Insured...."Id. at 3. This exclusion was qualified in turn by an "Innocent Insureds" provision, which nonetheless afforded "coverage for any Insured who did not personally participate in or acquiesce to any actual or alleged dishonest, 4
5 Case 3:08-cv HEH Document 50 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 5 of 15 criminal, malicious, or deliberately fraudulent act, error, or omission of another Insured" as long as the innocent insured "had no knowledge of or reason to believe that any such act, error, or omission was being committed." Id. at 4. The Policy further contained a "Representation in Application" section which specifically incorporated "the application for coverage" previously executed by Dalton on behalf of the Firm as "part of this policy." P1. Br. Ex. G at 8. The "Virginia Changes Endorsement" appended to the Representation in Application section also provided, in pertinent part: By acceptance of this policy the INSURED agrees: (1) the statements in the application are the representations of all INSUREDS (2) this policy is issued in reliance upon the truth of such representations. Id The Policy defined the term ccinsureds" as the Firm itself as well as "any partner or employee of the Firm," including both Dalton and Hancock. Cornpl. Ex. A at 2. C. Procedural Historv In October of 2007, Defendant Deana Parker, one of Hancock's former clients, commenced a lawsuit in state court against both Hancock and the Firm for damages arising out of Hancock's admitted embezzlement. See P1. Br. Ex. H. Defendants N.J. Properties and Nayan Pate1 also sued the Firm in Henrico County Circuit Court in October of Apparently concerned about its potential liability for Hancock's malfeasance, Minnesota Lawyers instituted this action on June 30,2008. Minnesota Lawyers now seeks a declaration from this Court either rescinding the Policy in full or
6 Case 3:08-cv HEH Document 50 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 6 of 15 determining that there is no coverage under the Policy's terms for any claims by Defendants due to Hancock's embezzlement and the Firm's subsequent misrepresentations. Contending that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Minnesota Lawyers filed this Motion for Summary Judgment on January 9, STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court may grant Minnesota Lawyer's Motion for Summary Judgment only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits.,, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [Minnesota Lawyers] is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The 'party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion" and "demonstrat[ing] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,323 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists under Rule 56 "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,248 (1986). When evaluating a motion under Rule 56, the Court must construe all "facts and inferences to be drawn from the facts... in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Miller v. Leathers, 913 F.2d 1085, 1087 (4th Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted). Mindhl of the applicable legal standard, the Court now considers whether Minnesota Lawyers is entitled to summary judgment on its
7 Case 3:08-cv HEH Document 50 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 7 of 15 claim for rescission of the Policy.' 111. ANALYSIS In Count Two of its Complaint, Plaintiff Minnesota Lawyers seeks a declaration from this Court that the Policy is "rescinded and void ab initio" because of the material misrepresentations and omissions made by Hancock, Dalton, and the Firm in obtaining the Policy. Before considering whether Minnesota Lawyers may rescind the Policy, however, the Court must first determine the appropriate legal standard that applies to Plaintiffs rescission claim. A. Ap~licable Leeal Standard for Rescission of the Policv To rescind an insurance policy because of an insured's misrepresentation, an insurer ordinarily must "show, by clear proof, two facts: (1) that the statement on the application was untrue; and (2) that the insurance company's reliance on the false statement was material to the company's decision to undertake the risk and issue the policy." Commercial Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Hunt & Calderone, P. C., 540 S.E.2d 491, 493 (Va. 200 I); see also Va. Code. Ann However, when an applicant qualifies its statements by certiqing that representations contained in an insurance application are only "correct to the best of [its] knowledge," the insurer must fbrther demonstrate by clear proof that the insured's statements were knowingly false to obtain rescission. Old Republic Lfe ins. Co. v. Bales, 195 S.E.2d 854, 856 (Va. 1973). 4 Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff may rescind the Policy, the Court need not decide Count One of Plaintiffs Complaint, which asks the Court to declare that coverage for Hancock and the Firm is excluded under the terms of the policy. See Compl
8 Case 3:08-cv HEH Document 50 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 8 of 15 Defendants urge the latter, more-demanding standard in this case. Nothing in the language of the Policy, however, permitted Hancock, Dalton, or the Firm to qualify their statements to Minnesota Lawyers by certifying that all representations were true and correct only to the best of their knowledge. Instead, the Firm-via Dalton, its "Managing Partner9'-made an unqualified representation in the Application that no firm member was "aware of any INCIDENT which could reasonably result in a claim being made against the firm or a member of the firm." P1. Br. Ex. D. Both Hancock and Dalton made a similarly unqualified statement when they categorically declared that all representations contained in the 2006 Adding an Attorney application were true. See P1. Br. Ex. C at 2. Defendants contend that Plaintiff must demonstrate that a knowingly false statement was made because the Application required Dalton, on behalf of the Firm, to certify that "a reasonable inquiry has been made... to ensure the accuracy of all information contained herein." See Def. Br. at 11. This language, however, did not permit Dalton or the Firm to qualify the representations contained in the Application. Rather, this provision imposed upon the Firm an additional affirmative duty to investigate the truthhlness of the statements made to its insurer. The Policy's provision requiring the Firm to certifl that it had conducted a reasonable inquiry into the truthfulness of its statements therefore was not the equivalent of language permitting an insured to warrant that its statements are only true to the best of its knowledge. Moreover, the Application's closing admonition that "failure to report any known claims or potential claims, or other material information may result in... policy 8
9 Case 3:08-cv HEH Document 50 Filed Page 9 of 15 rescission" was merely a warning to the Finn, not a qualification of any previous representations of fact in the Application. P1. Br. Ex. D at 2. Accordingly, Minnesota Lawyers need not demonstrate that any of the insureds knowingly made a false representation in their Application or related documents to rescind the Policy. Minnesota Lawyers instead may rescind the Policy by demonstrating-by clear proof-only that the Application contained a false statement and that the false statement was material to the company's decision to issue the Policy to the Firm. B. Whether Plaintiff Mav Rescind the Policy 1. False Statements in the Application Review of Minnesota Lawyers' evidence reveals that the 2006 Adding an Attorney form and the Firm's Application for insurance coverage contained several false statements. Hancock himself was responsible for the first false statement, certifying in the Adding an Attorney form that he was not "aware of any incident which could reasonably result in a claim against" him. P1. Br. Ex. C. at 2. Hancock now admits that this representation was false. P1. Br. Ex. A. at 2. Dalton, acting on behalf of the Firm in his capacity as its "Authorized Officer," subsequently adopted Hancock's misrepresentation in the 2007 Application for coverage when he certified that "the information previously supplied to [Minnesota Lawyers]" in the Firm's most recent submissions-including the Adding an Attorney form-was "still correct." P1. Br. Ex. D. In the Application, executed in 2007, Dalton also represented that no member of
10 Case 3:08-cv HEH Document 50 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 10 of 15 the Firm was "aware of any INCIDENT which could reasonably result in a claim being made against the firm or a member of the firm." P1. Br. Ex. D. However, the admission of Hancock, a member of the Firm, that he had been embezzling money from his clients since February of 2005 clearly demonstrates that Dalton's representation on behalf of the Firm in the Application, albeit unwitting, was false when it was made. See P1. Br. Ex. A 'IT 8. Defendants argue that Hancock's knowledge of his criminal activity cannot be imputed to either Dalton or the Firm. No party contends that Dalton either knew or had reason to know of Hancock's misdeeds. But Defendant's argument ignores the plain language of the Policy in which the Firm, via Dalton, specifically agreed by its acceptance of the Policy that ''the statements in the application are the representations of all INSUREDS," including Hancock. Compl. Ex. A at 7. By the language of the Policy itself, therefore, Hancock's misrepresentations were imputed to both the Firm and Dalton. If the Firm or its principals disagreed with this provision, they were fiee to bargain for different terms or to seek malpractice coverage elsewhere. Defendants' argument also overlooks the applicable standard for rescission of the Policy, which does not require Minnesota Lawyers to demonstrate that Dalton or the Firm knowingly made a false statement. See Part 111-A, supra. Plaintiff instead need only show, by clear proof, that a false statement was contained in the Application submitted to Minnesota Lawyers. Hancock's frank admission that his embezzlement began in 2005
11 Case 3:08-cv HEH Document 50 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 11 of 15 and continued through 2008 clearly demonstrates that the answers contained in the 2007 Application were false. That Dalton did not know they were false when he made them on behalf of the Firm is immaterial. Nothing prevented the Firm from bargaining for a provision permitting it to qualifj the Application's factual representations as true only to the best of the Firm and Dalton's knowledge. See Bales, 195 S.E.2d at 856. Inclusion of such a provision in the Application or the Policy would have imposed an additional burden on Minnesota Lawyers to demonstrate that Dalton actually knew he was making a false representation when he affirmed that no member of the Firm was "aware of any INCIDENT which could reasonably result in a claim being made against the firm or a member of the firm."' PI. Br. Ex. D. Because the Application contained no such qualification, however, Plaintiff need only demonstrate that the representation was false, not that Dalton or the Firm actually knew it was false. Considering the evidence produced by Plaintiff-and Hancock's admissions in particular-the Court thus concludes that no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether false statements were included in the application materials submitted to Minnesota Lawyers. 2. Mteriality of False Statements To rescind the Policy, Plaintiff must also demonstrate by clear proof that its his, of course, would raise the separate issue of whether Hancock's knowledge automatically was imputed to the Finn as a matter of law. Because Hancock's knowledge clearly is imputed to both the Firm and Dalton by the language of the Policy itself, however, the Court need not decide this issue. I 1
12 Case 3:08-cv HEH Document 50 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 12 of 15 reliance on the false statements contained in the Adding an Attorney form and Application was material to the company's decision to undertake the risk of insuring the Firm. See Harrell v. North Carolina Mut. Life Ins. Co., 213 S.E.2d 792, (Va. 1975). "A fact is material to the risk to be assumed by an insurance company if the fact would reasonably influence the company's decision whether or not to issue a policy." Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Echols, 154 S.E.2d 169, 172 (Va. 1967). When, as here, Plaintiff establishes a misrepresentation by clear proof, "its materiality is a question of law for the court." Harrell, 213 S.E.2d at 794 (citing United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Haywood, 177 S.E.2d 530,532 (1970)). The Policy at issue contains standard, form language warning the insureds that the representations made in the Application "are material as this policy is issued in reliance upon the truth of such representations." Compl. Ex. A at 7. But such "boilerplate language" is "far from the clear proof required to show [materiality]" and thereby rescind the Policy. Commercial Underwriters, 540 S.E.2d at 493; see also Va. Code. Ann Virginia law mandates a greater showing of materiality to satisfy the clear proof requirement of Section Plaintiff, however, relies on more than just the rote language of the Policy to establish materiality. Affidavits submitted by Minnesota Lawyers indicate that the company relied on the several misrepresentations contained in the Adding an Attorney form, the Application, and the Request-to-Issue form in issuing the Policy. See, e.g., PI.
13 Case 3:08-cv HEH Document 50 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 13 of 15 Br. Ex. P 7 2 (indicating that Minnesota Lawyers relied on the Firm's false representation in the Application that no "firm member [was] aware of any INCIDENT which could reasonably result in a claim being made against the firm or a member of the firm"); see also PI. Rebuttal Br. Ex. A. According to Minnesota Lawyers' affidavits, these misrepresentation were "material to [Minnesota Lawyers'] decision to undertake the risk and issue the Policy" because the company would have declined to issue the policy had the Firm responded truthfully. See PI. Br. Ex. P Defendants have offered no evidence to the contrary. The affidavits produced by Plaintiff thus demonstrate by clear proof that knowledge of Hancock's misdeeds "would [have] cause[d] [Minnesota Lawyers] to reject the risk" of insuring the Firm "or to accept it only at a higher premium rate." Chitwood v. Prudential hs. Co. Of Am., 143 S.E.2d 915,919 (Va. 1965). Common sense also suggests that an insurance company would either significantly limit or decline to provide insurance coverageor, at the very least, charge a substantially higher premium-under these circumstances. Plaintiff therefore has fulfilled its burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue remains regarding the materiality of the false statements made by the Firm in the materials submitted to Minnesota Lawyers to obtain insurance coverage. 3. PlaintifSls Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law Plaintiff has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of fact exists as to whether material false statements were contained in the application materials
14 Case 3:08-cv HEH Document 50 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 14 of 15 submitted by Hancock, Dalton, and the Firm. Because Plaintiff has made the requisite showing by clear proof, the Court therefore concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its claim for complete rescission of the Policy. Commercial Underwriters, 540 S.E.2d at 493; Va. Code. Ann That Dalton was unaware of Hancock's embezzlement does not prevent rescission of the Policy as to all insureds. The Policy did contain an Innocent Insureds provision which, absent rescission, may have afforded Dalton coverage under the facts of this case. But the Policy's Innocent Insured provision "does not reference or preclude the remedy of rescission for a material misrepresentation." TIG Ins. Co, v. Robertson, Cecil, King & Pruitt, No. lolcv143,2003 WL , at *3 (W.D. Va. Jan. 31,2003), afd, No ,2004 WL (4th Cir. Nov. 17,2004) (unpublished). To the contrary, "there is an obvious difference between affording coverage to an innocent insured under [the Innocent Insured] provision and rescinding the Policy because the... Firm, through its authorized partner, lied on the application." Id. The Policy therefore is rescinded as to all insureds notwithstanding Dalton's lack of personal knowledge of Hancock's misdeed^.^ IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons detailed herein, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Due to material misrepresentations contained in the application materials submitted to Minnesota Lawyers by the Firm, the Policy is rescinded in its totality. 61n fact, Plaintiffs represent that they have already issued Dalton a separate policy providing coverage for any liability he may face due to Hancock's actions.
15 Case 3:08-cv HEH Document 50 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 15 of 15 An appropriate Order was issued in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion on February 23, /s/ Henry E. Hudson United States District Judge ENTERED this Richmond, VA 3' dayof II\&fcr, J2008.
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 2:04-cv-03428-SRD-ALC Document 29 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA EDWARD McGARRY, ET AL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 04-3428 TRAVELERS LIFE AND ANNUITY
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARYLAND ACCOUNTING SERVICES, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CCB-11-CV-00145 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs
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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION MINNESOTA LAWYERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. WILLIAM F. CONOUR, et al. Plaintiff, Defendants. Cause No. 1:12-cv-1671-WTL-MJD
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
Zurich American Insurance Company v. Diamond Title of Sarasota, Inc. et al Doc. 71 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
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 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.
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 OKLAHOMA BRANDI NICOLE COMBEST ) JACKSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-08-384-SPS ) FARMERS NEW WORLD ) LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, )
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
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,
Present: All the Justices COMMERCIAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. Record No. 000474 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY January 12, 2001 HUNT & CALDERONE, P.C., ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
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: 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,
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.
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 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 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 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
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 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: 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
SECOND DIVISION September 28, 2007 No. 1-06-2949 SHELDON WERNIKOFF, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, a Mutual
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN PAUL BROEGE, and THE ESTATE OF STEVEN J. BROEGE, BY PHYLLIS A. BROEGE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, Wisconsin Residents, Plaintiffs,
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
Banner Life Insurance Company v. Jacqueline Noel Doc. 404269462 Appeal: 12-1329 Doc: 34 Filed: 01/22/2013 Pg: 1 of 11 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1329 BANNER
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
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,
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
2:08-cv-12335-MOB-RSW Doc # 37 Filed 02/02/10 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 881 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SENECA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 08-12335
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).
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.
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 1:09-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 5:13-cv-01237-D Document 49 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA MART D. GREEN, Trustee of the David and Barbara Green 1993 Dynasty Trust,
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 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 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
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION JOHN FRAZIER HUNT, : DECEMBER TERM, 2004 Plaintiff, : No. 2742 v. : (Commerce Program) NATIONAL
Case 1:13-cv-24473-DPG Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2015 Page 1 of 9 ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. Plaintiff, SCALTEC USA CORP., and LEE ELLIS BLUE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: CASE NO. JAMES MICHAEL WATSON 03-13355 DEBTOR CHAPTER 7 SECURITY RESOURCES, L.L.C. ADV. NO and INTERFACE SECURITY SYSTEMS, L.L.C. 04-1005
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 2:14-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
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 1:05-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 NEW JERSEY DEAN SMITH, on behalf of himself and Others similarly situated, v. Michael Harrison, Esquire, Plaintiff, Defendant. OPINION Civ. No. 07-4255 (WHW) Walls,
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 THE ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION OF AMERICA, AN ILLINOIS : STOCK CORPORATION : Plaintiff, : : v. : : KEVIN BEAUCHAMP
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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ERIN T. WASHICHECK, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER v. 05-C-302-S THE ULTIMATE LTD. and THE ULTIMATE LTD. HEALTH PLAN, Defendants.
Case: 15-10192 Document: 00513409349 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. DARILYN JOHNSON, v. Plaintiff Appellant,
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
Case 2:08-cv-04597-LDD Document 17 Filed 02/05/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUZANNE BUTLER, Individually and as : Administratrix of the Estate
IN THE 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
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.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A08-1153 Loyal H. Bud Chapman, d/b/a Chapman Studios,
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.
THE IMPACT OF A POLICYHOLDER S MISREPRESENTATIONS IN ILLINOIS JOHN D. DALTON AND MARK A. SWANTEK An insurer s options when the insured is making misrepresentations depend on the timing of those misrepresentations
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 BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re ) Chapter 11 ) AVENTINE RENEWABLE ENERGY ) Case No. 09-11214(KG) HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware ) (Jointly Administered) Corporation,
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0721n.06 No. 13-2126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PATRICK RUGIERO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; FANNIE MAE; MORTGAGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA HARRISONSBURG DIVISION WYNN S EXTENDED CARE, INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 5:13-cv-00114 v. PENNY L. BRADLEY, By: Hon. Michael
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
Page 1 7 of 10 DOCUMENTS MINN. LAWYERS MUT. INS. CO., Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER MAZULLO, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-830 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 2010 U.S.
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
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
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 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 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 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION DIAMOND STATE INSURANCE CO., : April Term, 2000 Plaintiff, : v. : No. 0395 : NUFAB CORP.
IN THE 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
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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HUDSON UNITED BANK, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-4135 Memorandum and
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:14-CV-295-D GREENWICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, v. Record No. 951919 September
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 SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY v. NO. 2014-IA-00913-SCT TIFFANY DUKES, ROBERT LEE HUDSON, TAWANDA L. WHITE, AS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF JEFFREY L. PIGGS, A MINOR CHILD DATE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. MARK TROXLER, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 28, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court