Gentner et al v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Michigan

Defendant: Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Michigan
Plaintiff: Donald R Gentner and Mary Ann Gentner
Case Number: 2:2009cv13798
Filed: September 25, 2009
Court: Michigan Eastern District Court
Office: Detroit Office
County: Sanilac
Presiding Judge: Friedman
Referring Judge: Whalen
Nature of Suit: Other
Cause of Action: 42:1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review
Jury Demanded By: Both

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 Michigan Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Gentner et al v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Michigan
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Michigan
Represented By: Leon Letter
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 ]
Plaintiff: Donald R Gentner
Represented By: Brian R. Schrope
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 ]
Plaintiff: Mary Ann Gentner
Represented By: Brian R. Schrope
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.