American Chemical Service Inc v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company et al
| American Chemical Service Inc |
| United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PA |
| 2:2013cv00177 |
| May 24, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Hammond Office |
| Lake |
| John E Martin |
| Theresa L Springmann |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
| Both |
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
142
OPINION AND ORDER denying 134 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court also declines to certify this issue to the Indiana Supreme Court or for interlocutory appeal pursuant to § 1292(b). Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 6/4/2015. (kds)
|
|
Filing
133
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Partial Motion for Summary Judgment 31 and finds that Defendant had a duty to defend Plaintiff with regard to the EPA CERCLA action at Gary Developmental Landfill and breached its duty. Consequently, Defendants Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 95 and 98 is DENIED. Defendants Motion for a Hearing 101 is DENIED as moot. Similarly, Plaintiffs Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Defendants Expert 118 is DENIED as moot with permission to refile at a later stage of theproceedings if necessary. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 4/2/2015. (rmn)
|
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.
