Cases

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 878 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 879 OPINION I. INTRODUCTION The present appeal is from a judgment entered after the trial

49 So.3d 815 (2010) Alexander G. SARIS, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, Hustriberto Hernandez, Bruno M. Pires, National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, and American Home Assurance Company, Appellees. No. 4D09-886. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. December 1, 2010.</

OPINION MESSITTE, District Judge. Plaintiffs Herbert Ostrof and LaCountess B. Corbitt, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, have filed suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. As insureds under automobile insurance policies of State Farm, they allege that, pursuant to an illegal plan of State Farm, they were denied reimbursement for medical bills and lost i

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Mangual v. State Farm Mut Auto. Ins., 719 So.2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). STEVENSON, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1853 Doc: 68 Filed: 03/08/2024 Pg: 1 of 35 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1853 ELEGANT MASSAGE, LLC, d/b/a Light Stream Spa, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Ap

PER CURIAM. We find error in the trial court’s entry of a directed verdict on Appellant’s seat belt defense. Appellant presented competent evidence from which a jury could conclude that Appellee was comparatively negligent. See Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp., 693 So.2d 934 (Fla.1996). Therefore, we reverse and remand for a new trial on liability and damages. STONE, C.J., and GUNTHER and SHA

907 F.Supp. 1012 (1995) Virginia Dawn WHITE, Individually and As Next Friend of Carol McLaughlin, A Minor, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. No. 4:94CV280. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division. December 11, 1995. *1013 *1014 Larry Ca

In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., applying for writ of certiorari or review, to the First Circuit, Court of Appeal. Parish of Livingston. 413 So.2d 644. Denied.

Brown, Judge. Patricia DeMarco, individually, and as administrator of the estate of Philip DeMarco, deceased, filed a complaint against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") seeking enforcement of a settlement agreement. She appeals from the superior court's order granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm, contending that genuine issues of material fact ex

Case: 17-12583 Date Filed: 12/20/2019 Page: 1 of 22 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-12583 ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 6:14-md-02557-GAP-TBS; 6:14-cv-06016-GAP-TBS CRAWFORD’S AUTO CENTER, INC., et al.,

ON REHEARING PER CURIAM. We grant rehearing and now affirm the decision of the trial court on the authority of this court’s en banc opinion in Wilson Insurance Services v. West American Insurance Co., 608 So.2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA October 14, 1992). ANSTEAD, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Case: 16-13596 Date Filed: 03/06/2020 Page: 1 of 47 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-13596 ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 6:14-md-02557-GAP-TBS, 6:14-cv-06000-GAP-TBS AUTOMOTIVE ALIGNMENT & BODY SERVICE, INC., d.b.a.

PER CURIAM. An estranged and distraught husband abducted his wife from her place of business and transported her in a vehicle owned by the parties and insured by the appellee insurance company. While in the vehicle the husband shot and killed the wife. The personal representative of the estate of the deceased wife (appellant) filed a wrongful death action against the insurer seeking personal injury protection (PIP) and unins

GLICKSTEIN, Judge. This is an appeal from a final judgment entered after the trial court granted defendant’s motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case during a jury trial. We reverse and remand, only one issue being ripe for review; namely, whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict against the plaintiff after presentation of that party’s case in chief. We conclude it did err.

GUNTHER, Judge. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) appeals a summary final judgment entered in favor of Andy Zuckerman (Zuckerman). The trial court held that State Farm, a coinsurer with Horizon Insurance, must provide coverage to Zuckerman for all 20% of his medical expenses without subtracting the $2,000.00 deductible of the Horizon policy under which he was a dependent insured. We affirm.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOSEPH C. VINCENT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) C.A. No.: K24C-01-025 NEP ) STATE FARM MUTUAL ) AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ) COM

PER CURIAM. We deny the petition for certiorari as petitioners failed to show irreparable injury or that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying *602the motion to disqualify respondents’ attorneys from continued representation in this case. The petitioner insurance companies sought to disqualify the respondents’ at

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

Judgment rendered June 26, 2024 Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 55,656-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** BILLY RAY H

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