Aspen American Insurance Company v. Interstate Warehousing Inc et al
| Aspen American Insurance Co |
| Interstate Warehousing Inc and Interstate Warehousing of Michigan LLC |
| 1:2014cv00383 |
| December 5, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Fort Wayne Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Roger B Cosbey |
| Philip P Simon |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
145
OPINION AND ORDER: The 105 MOTION in Limine Regarding Trial Issues filed by Interstate Warehousing Inc, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; the Motion for Separation of Witnesses filed by Interstate 107 is GRANTED; the Motion to Amend/Correct Seventh Motion in Limine filed by Aspen American 116 is GRANTED; the First Motion in Limine to Exclude any Evidence in Support of Defendant's Act of God Defense filed by Plaintiff Aspen American Insurance Co. 108 is DE NIED; the Second Motion in Limine to Exclude Unauthenticated Climatological or Meteorological Data filed by Aspen American 109 is DENIED; the Third Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Opinions by Persons Who Have Not Been Timely Disclosed filed by Aspen American 110 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; the Fourth Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Witnesses Who Have Not Been Timely Disclosed filed by Aspen American 111 is GRANTED; the Fifth Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to Snow Removal Policies filed by Aspen American 112 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; the Sixth Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Untimely Document Production filed by Aspen American 113 is DENIED; the Seventh Motion in Limine to Preclude Objections to Admission of FEMA Snow Load Safety Guide Pursuant to FRE 902 filed by Aspen American 114 is GRANTED; and the Eighth Motion in Limine to (I) Preclude Objections to Inferences Made Due to Spoliation of Evidence & (II) Permit Witnesses to Testify About Spoliated Evidence filed by Aspen American 115 is GRANTED inpart and DENIED in part. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 8/14/2021. (lhc)
|
|
Filing
75
OPINION AND ORDER: The Motion for Sanctions 64 is GRANTED in part (as to the issue of spoliation of evidence) and DENIED in part (as to the applicable sanction to be imposed), and the Motion to Strike 70 is DENIED. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 12/05/2019. (jat)
|
|
Filing
56
OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant Interstate's "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the Enforceability of the Limitation of Liability Contract Clause and Plaintiff's Spoliation of Evidence Claims" ECF 35 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, Plaintiff Aspen's motion for partial summary judgment ECF 40 is DENIED and Defendant Interstate's Request for Oral Argument ECF 50 is DENIED. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 3/13/19. (nal)
|
|
Filing
13
OPINION AND ORDER granting plaintiff's 12 Unopposed Motion to Stay Action in Favor of State Court Proceeding. This case is STAYED until the resolution of the Illinois suit pending between the parties. Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit a status report to this Court every ninety days concerning the Illinois suit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 6/25/2015. (rmn)
|
|
Filing
2
OPINION AND ORDER re 1 Complaint filed by Plaintiff Aspen American Insurance Company. Plaintiff ORDERED to supplement the record by 12/22/2014 by filing an Amended Complaint that adequately alleges the citizenship of each party. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 12/8/14. (cer)
|
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 Indiana Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
