Cases

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MO- ' TION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT' AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ' JUDGMENT ‘ ' RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Dkts. #20 and #22. The parties seek judgments as a matter of law with respect to coverage under an Acci

Memorandum Opinion Charles R; Simpson III, Senior Judge I. Introduction This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.56(a), ECF-No. 27. Plaintiff William Kennedy responded, ECF No. 31. LINA replied, ECF No. 34. Kennedy filed a cross-motion' for sum

768 F.Supp.2d 908 (2011) Elizabeth THIES and Gloria Thies, Conservator for MT a minor, Plaintiffs, v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant. Case No. 5:09-CV-98. United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah Division. February 4, 2011. *909 Michael D. Grabhorn, Grabhorn Law Office, PLLC, Louisville, KY, Willia

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: I. A. Diane Melech is the beneficiary of an employee welfare benefit plan provided by her.employer Hertz. The plan includes a disability insurance policy (the “Policy”) issued and administered by the Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”). LINA’s administration of the Policy is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 88 Stat. 829, 29 U.S

650 F.Supp.2d 500 (2009) Amy Glessner ARNOLD, Plaintiff, v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant. Civil Action No. 7:08CV00639. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division. July 2, 2009. *501 Arthur Patrick Strickland, Correy Austin Diviney, Arthur P. Strickland PC, Roanoke, VA, for Plaintiff.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Dale S. Fischer, United States District Judge This matter came before the Court on November 10, 2015 for a court trial on the administrative record. The Court now finds as follows. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) issued a group long-term disability policy to a multiple employer

FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW MARGARET M. MORROW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Stephanie Shaw filed this action on October 14, 2014, against Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”).1 Shaw alleges that she was denied long-term disability benefits to which she was entitled under a disability benefit plan (the “Plan”) established by her former employer

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge. I. Introduction This lawsuit arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). (Doc. 1 at 1). Plaintiff Vanessa Caudle (“Ms. Caudle”) filed her complaint on March 25, 2014. (Doc. 1). The defendants named in Ms. Caudle’s lawsuit are Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, District Judge. Plaintiff Dr. Yafei Haung brings this action against Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America, for damages *895and equitable relief pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001. Defendant issued a basic and supplemental life i

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge. I. Introduction This lawsuit arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). (Doc. 1 at 1). Plaintiff Dorothy Smith (“Ms. Smith”) most recently amended her lawsuit on July 28, 2014. (Doc. 82). Pending before the court are Ms. Smith’s Motion To Strike LIN

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS B. RUSSELL, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the case and establish a scheduling order. (Pls.’ Mot., Docket Number (“DN”) 89.) The Defendant has responded. (Def.’s Resp., DN 91.) The Plaintiffs have replied. (Pls.’ Reply, DN 94.) Having considered the matter and being fully advised, the Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

MELLOY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Yafei Huang appeals the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment on claims related to a denial of life insurance benefits by Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”), the ERISA plan administrator for her deceased husband’s former employer. LINA denied benefits, determining th

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief Judge. Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Before the court is Defendant McKesson Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 12), which Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America has joined (Doc. # 18). Plaintiff has responded to the original

MEMORANDUM & ORDER NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, District Judge. Plaintiff’ David Blau (“Blau”), Trustee of the Zupnick Family Trust 2008 C (the “Trust”), brings this action against Defendant Allianz Life Insurance Compar ny of North America (“Allianz North America”)1 seeking declaratory relief concerning a life insurance policy issued by Allianz North America of which the Trust i

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER THOMAS B. RUSSELL, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Def.’s Mot., Docket Number (“DN”) 5.) The Plaintiffs have responded. (Pis.’ Resp., DN 6.) The Defendant has replied. (Def.’s Reply, DN 9.) Having considered the matter and being fully advised, the Defendant’s motion is DENIED. I.

OPINION ROBERT J. JONKER, District Judge. Jerry Mais has been an Allianz customer since 2005. Joseph Fabian was his Allianz agent. Allianz terminated Fabian’s agency in 2007 because Fabian failed to renew his insurance license. The termination was “without cause,” meaning that Fabian could no longer open or accept checks for new accounts but could continue to collect commissions and new custome

ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Diane G. Melech’s Rule 72(a) “Statement of Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying D.E. 34 and D.E. 38-42” and brief (Docs. 68, 69), Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 73) and Plaintiffs Reply (Doc. 74). I. Background

OPINION AND ORDER AIKEN, Chief Judge: Kenneth Ayers (“Ayers”) filed this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), against the Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”). Ayers alleges that LINA wrongfully denied his claim for long-term disability benefits (the “benefits claim”). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on A

MEMORANDUM OPINION NORMAN K. MOON, District Judge. This action arises out of the decision by Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America (“Defendant” or “LINA”) to deny benefits claimed by Plaintiff Catherine Weber (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Weber”) under two Accidental Death and Dismemberment (“AD & D”) policies of insurance issued by LINA and carried by her deceased husband, Carl Weber

*889MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS B. RUSSELL, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. DN 83. The Defendant has responded. DN 86. The Plaintiffs have replied. DN 87. Fully briefed, this matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is GR