Cases

THOMAS, J.: Appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) appeals the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment to Respondents Wadette and Chris Cothran. The Cothrans brought this action against State Farm alleging breach of an insurance contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. State Farm argues the circuit court erred by granting summary judg

LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge: Daniel Dey appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on his claim of bad faith, and also its grant of State Farm’s motion to amend the judgment entered after a jury verdict on compensatory damages. We AFFIRM. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. This case involves the handling of a claim under policies providing underin-sured-motorist coverage. The tortfeasor, Mr. Terrill Graf, bought his fíancée a van for her 50th birthday. Celebrating the birthday and new purchase, Mr. Graf drank liquor and then gathered four friends in the van. The plaintiff, Ms. Wendy Peden, was one of those friends. She says

ORDER PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff David Montanaro, Susan Mon-tanaro, and Coastal Collision Works, LLC’s (“Coastal”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is granted. BACKGROUND This action a

EBEL, Circuit Judge. In April 2003, Plaintiff-Appellant David Nelson filed a state-court suit for reformation and for breach of an automobile insurance contract against Defendanb-Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. He asserted entitlement to extended loss-of-wage personal-injury-protection (“PIP”) benefits under the Colorado Auto

OPINION AND ORDER DAVID BRAMLETTE, District Judge. Before this Court are the Motions for Summary Judgment of Defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company [docket entry no. 183] and J. Paul Clinton and Stokes & Clinton, P.C. (the “Clinton Defendants”) [docket entry no. 181]. Having carefully considered the Motions, responses thereto, and applicable statutory and case law, the Co

Okder • GREGORY A. PRESNELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the Court on motions to dismiss (Doc. 120,121,123, 125) filed by various groups of Defendants, the responses in opposition (Doc. 133,134,153) to those motions filed by the Plaintiffs, and the replies (Doc. 137,138,146,154) filed by the movants. The portions of those motions having to do with the Plaintiffs’ state law claims

JUSTICE COTTER delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Heath Freyer, his wife, Vail, and their daughter, Alicia, were involved in an automobile accident in October 2003. Heath was killed and Alicia was injured in the accident. Frank Freyer, Heath’s father, was appointed personal representative of Heath’s estate and conservator of Alicia’s estate. Frank made a claim for benefits under Heath and Vail’s State Far

Order GREGORY A. PRESNELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the Cozurt on motions to dismiss (Doc. 89, 90, 92) filed by various groups of Defendants, the response in opposition (Doc. 98) to those motions filed by the Plaintiffs, and the replies (Doc. 99, 101, 103, 104) filed by the movants. The portions of those motions having to do with the Plaintiffs’ state law claims have been re

Order GREGORY A. PRESNELL, District Judge. On March 2, 2015, Magistrate Judge Smith issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 78), recommending that the Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 9, 17, and 19) be granted and that the Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed. The Plaintiffs filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 79), to which the Defendants responded (Does. 80-82). By thei

Order GREGORY A. PRESNELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the Court after a hearing on various motions to dismiss (Doc. 209-211) filed by the Defendants, the response in opposition (Doc. 216) filed by the Plaintiffs, the replies (Doc. 224, 226, 228) filed by the Defendants, and the sur-reply (Doc. 235). I. Background The instant case is one of

Order GREGORY A. PRESNELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the. Court on motions to dismiss (Doc., 37, 41, 42, 45) filed by various groups of Defendants, the responses in opposition (Doc. 58, 59) to those motions filed by the Plaintiff, and the replies (Doc. 60-63) filed by the mov-ants. The portions of those motions having to do with the Plaintiffs state law claims have been referre

PARRO, J. Instate Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) appeals a judgment that granted Nakoosha Albert a property damage award of $36,333.07, plus interest and costs. After reviewing the entirety of the record and applicable law, we reverse that judgment and render judgment in favor of State Farm on its reconventional demand. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On Septem

(2008) Mark SNYDER, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. C.A. No. 2:07-CV-00433-PMD. United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division. February 22, 2008. ORDER PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY, District Judge. This matter is before the court on Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Compan

988 F.Supp. 527 (1997) Craig NELSON v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. No. CIV.A. 97-4653. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. December 12, 1997. *528 John G. Bravacos, Palma & Sbarbaro, LLC, West Chester, PA, for Craig Nelson. Louis E. Bricklin, Erin M. Donaldson, Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzb

JUSTICE COTTER delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Jeff Gibson, Melinda Gibson, Amber Gibson, Zachery Gibson, and Edward Kinion (the Gibsons) sought to recover from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) medical payments coverage (MPC) from three policies they had with State Farm. State Farm brought an action in the Eighth Judicial District

MEMORANDUM ** In a common law insurance action, Ruth Wade alleged that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance acted in bad faith in denying her claim for damages sustained in a car accident with State Farm’s insured, Timothy Avallone. Following a trial on Wade’s claims, the jury found that State Farm did not act in bad faith and the district court entered judgment against Wade. On appeal, Wade argues that

366 S.C. 511 (2005) 623 S.E.2d 387 Patricia L. EDGE, Miles Green, and all others similarly situated, Appellants/Respondents, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and all others similarly situated, and South Carolina Reinsurance Facility, Defendants, of whom South Carolina Reinsurance Facility is the, Respondent, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is the, Respondent/Appellant.

GASKINS, J. hThe parents of a deceased occupant involved in a one-car accident appeal from a trial court ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the surviving occupant and. the car’s insurer on the basis that the deceased occupant was driving at the time of the accident. We reverse and remand. FACTS' In the late night hours of June 5, 2002, or the early morning hours of June 6, 20

HILL, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal under Rule 23(f), Fed. R.Civ.P., from the district court’s order certifying a national class of approximately 70 million automobile insurance policyholders. Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks treble damages under the federal antitrust laws for alleged premium overcharges. For the following reasons, we have determined that we have no jurisdiction i