Cases

276 P.3d 300 (2012) 174 Wn.2d 501 VISION ONE, LLC; and Vision Tacoma, Inc., Petitioners, v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and RSUI, Respondents, and D & D Construction, Inc., Respondent. D & D Construction, Inc., Respondent, v. Berg Equipment and Scaffolding Co., INC., Respondent. Matthew Thompson, Respondent, v. D & D, Inc., a Washington corporation; Berg Equipment and S

123 S.W.3d 690 (2003) ALLSTATE TEXAS LLOYDS, Appellant, v. C. Robert MASON and Deborah Mason, Appellee. No. 2-02-321-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth. November 26, 2003. *693 Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P., Wade C. Crosnoe, Roger D. Higgins, Dallas, for appellant. *694

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S O F T E N N E S S E E A T K N O X V I L L E FILED February 27, 1998 Ceci

FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE March 16, 2000 AT NASHVILLE Cecil Crowson, Jr. STATE AUTO INSURANCE ) Appellate Court Clerk COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) Appeal No. ) M1998-00900-

PER CURIAM. The final declaratory judgment under review is affirmed upon a holding that there is no liability coverage for the death of the insured’s wife [Cecil Diamond] due to the negligence of the deceased insured husband [Herbert R. Diamond] under the subject insurance policy issued by Allstate Insurance Company based on the family exclusion clause in the policy. We conclude that the said exclusion clause is fully applic

241 P.3d 429 (2010) VISION ONE, LLC; and Vision Tacoma, Inc., Respondents/Cross Appellants, v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent/Cross Appellant and D & D CONSTRUCTION, INC., Respondent. D & D Construction, Inc., Respondent, v. Berg Equipment & Scaffolding Co., Inc., Respondent. Matthew Thompson, Respondent, v. D & D, Inc., a Washington corporation; Berg Equipment & Scaffolding Co

ALLSTATE TEXAS LLOYDS V. C. ROBERT MASON AND DEBORAH MASON COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-02-321-CV ALLSTATE TEXAS LLOYDS APPELLANT

568 So.2d 113 (1990) GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. Kitteridge S. FITZGIBBON, et al., Appellees/Cross Appellants. No. 89-1058. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. October 18, 1990. Daniel P. Mitchell, of Mitchell and Carter, P.A., Tampa, for appellant/cross appellee. Karen O. Gaffney and Clark A. Stillwel

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-02-321-CV ALLSTATE TEXAS LLOYDS APPELLANT V. C. ROBERT MASON AND DEBORAH MASON APPELLEE

507 So.2d 750 (1987) AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. Sylvan A. WELLS, etc., Appellee. No. 86-843. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. May 21, 1987. *751 Reinald Werrenrath III, and Lora A. Dunlap, of Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Keiner, Wack & Dickson, P.A., Orlando, for appellant. Daniel S.

MEMORANDUM William J. Nealon, United States District Judge Plaintiff, Kariann Baton, filed a complaint against Defendant, Enhanced Recovery Company, Inc., in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, alleging that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”). (Doc. 1). On March 8, 2016, Defendant removed the action to this Court. (Id.).

345 S.W.3d 431 (2011) SOUTHWEST OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR COMPANY, LLC., d/b/a Olshan Foundation Repair Company, Appellant, v. Nelda GONZALES, Appellee. No. 04-09-00232-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. January 19, 2011. Rehearing Overruled March 2, 2011. *434 D. Roderick MacRae, II, Henslee Schwartz L.L

OPINION1 KEVIN J. CAREY, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Before the Court is an adversary complaint in which the United States of1 America, on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service (the “Government” or “IRS”), asks this Court to recharacterize or equitably subordinate certain secured notes issued in 1996 as part of a chapter 11 reorganization plan. The sec

418 N.W.2d 526 (1988) Patricia P. WARREN, as trustee for the heirs and next of kin of James P. Warren, deceased, Respondent, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. No. C3-87-1585. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. February 2, 1988. Review Denied April 15, 1988. *527 M. John Steward, Linehan, Gallagh

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 24-1210 EMIGRANT MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.; RETAINED REALTY, INC., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. DONEYN BOURKE; WILLIAM HAYWARD, SR., Defendants, Appellants, ANY AND ALL OCCUPANTS, Defendants. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

571 F.3d 299 (2009) NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant v. GEORGE V. HAMILTON, INC., Appellee. No. 08-4733. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued May 21, 2009. Filed: July 6, 2009. *303 Peter B. Skeel, Esq., Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, Rolf

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the court on defendant Commonwealth Insurance Company’s (“Commonwealth”) motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. # 89)1 and plaintiff Trident Seafoods Corporation’s (“Trident”) motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. # 138). Be

461 B.R. 267 (2011) In re AMERICAN LAFRANCE, LLC, Reorganized Debtor. American LaFrance, LLC, Plaintiff, v. RT Jedburg Commerce Park, LLC, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 08-10178 (BLS). Adversary No. 10-51245. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware. November 2, 2011. *269 Christopher A. Ward, Justin K. Edelson, Shanti M. Kato

Stephens, J. ¶1 This case involves the proper interpretation of a “resulting loss” clause in an all-risk insurance policy. It also provides an opportunity to clarify application of the efficient proximate cause rule. The Court of Appeals overturned a jury verdict in favor of the insured, reasoning that the resulting loss clause did not apply in the absence of a secondary covered peril that proximately caused the loss. The court r

Armstrong, J. fl Shoring equipment supporting a poured concrete slab collapsed during the construction of a condominium complex being developed by Vision One LLC and Vision Tacoma Inc. (collectively Vision). Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., Vision’s insurance company, denied Vision’s insurance claim and Vision sued Philadelphia for breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), chapter 19