United Specialty Insurance Company v. Continental Roofing Company, LLC et al

Plaintiff: United Specialty Insurance Company
Defendant: Continental Roofing Company, LLC and Lorna Partners, LLC
Case Number: 2:2013cv00561
Filed: March 26, 2013
Court: Alabama Northern District Court
Office: Southern Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: James H Hancock
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract
Jury Demanded By: None

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Alabama Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: United Specialty Insurance Company v. Continental Roofing Company, LLC et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: United Specialty Insurance Company
Represented By: William F Smith, II
Represented By: James A Potts, II
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Continental Roofing Company, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Lorna Partners, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.