Cases

MEMORANDUM & ORDER PAMELA K. CHEN, District Judge: On December 16, 2009, Plaintiff Ratna Prabhakar, acting pro se, filed her complaint alleging that Defendant Life Insurance Company of America (“LINA”) had violated the terms of the Group Long Term Disability Income Policy (the “Policy”) issued to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”). (Dkt. No. 45 (“Joint Pr

609 F.3d 143 (2010) TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, f/k/a The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. *INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Appellee/Cross-Appellant *Per Court's Order of 10/7/08. Nos. 06-4100, 06-4101, 07-4690, 08-1032. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued May 12, 2009. Opinion filed June 9, 201

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND FRANK MONTALVO, District Judge. On this day, the court considered Plaintiff Chad S. Gill and Plaintiff Dakota James Gill’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) “Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint” (“Motion for Leave”) [ECF No. 3], filed August 5, 2013; “Plaintiffs [sic] Motion to Remand” (“Motion to Remand”

OPINION & ORDER MICHAEL R. BARRETT, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendants Citrosuco North America, Inc. and Seeretary/Treasurer Plan Administrator Salary Continuation Plan’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 16).1 Plaintiff Michael DuBrul (“Plaintiff’) filed a response in opposition (Doc. 19), and Defendants filed their

OPINION AND ORDER GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge. This matter is before the Court for consideration of Porsche Cars North America, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Master Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 62), Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Porsche Cars North America, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Master Consolidated Amend

47 F.3d 586 66 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1377, 63 USLW 2482 William J. MILLER, Appellant,v.CIGNA CORPORATION; The Insurance Company of North America. No. 93-1773. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued March 28, 1994.Reargued In Banc Oct. 18, 1994.Decided Jan. 23, 1995.

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-21-00239-CV Appellant, Star Houston, Inc. // Cross-Appellant, Volvo Cars of North America, LLC n/k/a Volvo Car USA, LLC v. Appellees, Volvo Cars of North America, LLC n/k/a Volvo Car USA, LLC and the Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles // Cross-Appellees, Star Houston, Inc. and t

(2007) Maxwell PRINGLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONTINENTAL TIRE NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 3:06 CV 2985. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division. July 31, 2007. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JACK ZOUHARY, District Judge. This is a case claiming "violation of labor contracts" and, specifically, the pay

807 F.Supp. 1143 (1992) OLIN CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, et al., Defendants. No. 84 Civ. 1968 (LBS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 7, 1992. *1144 Anderson Kill Olick & Oshinsky, P.C., New York City (Stephen A. Dvorkin, of counsel), for plaintiff. Mudge Rose Gut

52 F.3d 1194 NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY,v.CIGNA REINSURANCE COMPANY, individually and as successor toINA Reinsurance CompanyNorth River Insurance Company, Appellant in No. 93-5743CIGNA Reinsurance Company, Appellant in No. 93-5764. Nos. 93-5743 & 93-5764. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued July 21, 1994.Decided April 13, 1

Appellees= Motions for Rehearing Overruled; Opinion of June 2, 2005 Withdrawn; Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part; and Substitute Majority Opinion filed February 23, 2006 Appellees= Motions for Rehearing Overruled; Opinion of June 2, 2005 Withdrawn; Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part; and Substitute Majority Opinion filed F

OPINION OF THE COURT COWEN, Circuit Judge. Insurance Company of North America (“INA”) objects to the discharge in bankruptcy of a debt owed to it by David Cohn. This appeal turns on the proper interpretation of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). The bankruptcy court concluded, and the district court affirmed, that INA did not meet its burden of proving that it reas

762 F.Supp. 548 (1991) OLIN CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, et al., Defendants. No. 84 Civ. 1968 (LBS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April 23, 1991. *549 Haythe & Curley, New York City (Michael L. Gioia, James J. Harrington, Russell K. Statman, of counsel), Anderson, Kill, Olick

OP ALA, J., with whom HODGES and WILSON, JJ., join, dissenting. ¶ 1 Today’s pronouncement declares that the trial court erred in allowing the terms of 36 O.S.1991 § 1928 B.41 to serve as the basis for depriving the reinsurer, The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America (Guardian), of its contractual-offset bargain because a) the invoked statutory provisions were not in for

743 F.Supp. 1044 (1990) OLIN CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, et al., Defendants. No. 84 CIV 1968 (LBS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. August 2, 1990. *1045 Haythe & Curley (James J. Harrington, Michael L. Gioia, Russell K. Statman, of counsel), New York City, for plaintiff.

PRESIDING JUSTICE CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court: This interlocutory appeal arises out of this court’s decision in Mortell v. Insurance Company of North America (1983), 120 Ill. App. 3d 1016, 458 N.E.2d 922 (Mortell I) to vacate summary judgment and to remand for a trial on the issue of plaintiffs’ compliance with the notice provisions on certain fid

Opinion STONE, P. J. May a plaintiff who, at trial, fails to prove an insured defendant’s liability subsequently sue the defendant’s insurers for unfair practices in not attempting, in good faith, to settle the case once liability to plaintiff is “reasonably clear”? It may not. We affirm the judgment of dismissal. Minor, Alison Rae Sych, by and through Marianne Sych, mother and guardian ad

173 Cal.App.3d 321 (1985) 220 Cal. Rptr. 692 ALISON RAE SYCH, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA et al., Defendants and Respondents. Docket No. B003996. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six. October 15, 1985. *323 COUNSEL Lewis Grah

148 F.3d 283 41 Fed.R.Serv.3d 596 In re: THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA SALESPRACTICES LITIGATION.Richard P. KRELL, MDL transfer, N.D. Ohio, DNJ Civil Action No. 95-6062v.PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,Richard P. Krell, as well as Objectors Elizabeth Bajek,Amanda Bajek, Helen Bartsch, Mark Ciconte, Raymond Dolce,Margaret Dolice, Louise Duggan, Peter Duggan, CharlesD

ACCEPTED 03-16-00203-CV 13816645 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS