Harleysville Insurance Company v. Physical Distribution Services, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Harleysville Insurance Company
Defendant: Physical Distribution Services, Inc., Miller Transporters, Inc. and Jonathan Hughes
Case Number: 0:2010cv02591
Filed: June 24, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Office: DMN Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Arthur J. Boylan
Presiding Judge: Donovan W. Frank
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 23, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 74 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 63 Motion for Attorney Fees (see Memorandum Opinion and Order for details). (Written Opinion.) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 02/23/2012. (rlb)
January 30, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 62 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1. Plaintiff Harleysville's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 27 ) is DENIED. 2. Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant PDSI (Doc. No. 31 ) and Defendant Miller's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [3 5]) are GRANTED IN PART as follows: a. PDSI is obligated to indemnify Miller for its settlement of the West Virginia action in the amount of $300,000. b. Harleysville is obligated to provide coverage for the settlement of the West Virginia actio n. c. The parties shall negotiate, in good faith, resolution of Miller's claim for reimbursement of $104,337 in attorney fees. If the parties are unable to resolve the issue within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order, Mill er shall file with the Court an affidavit of counsel, along with an itemized accounting of the costs and fees incurred in the West Virginia action. 3. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order, the parties shall each indicate, in writing, whether by stipulation or by letter to the Court, their respective positions regarding the status of Defendant Jonathan Hughes as a party to this action. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 1/30/2012. (BJS)
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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Harleysville Insurance Company v. Physical Distribution Services, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Harleysville Insurance Company
Represented By: Tamara L Novotny
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Physical Distribution Services, Inc.
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Miller Transporters, Inc.
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Jonathan Hughes
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?