Connolly v. Peerless Insurance Company
2:2010cv00789 |
February 22, 2010 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
Central Islip Office |
Arthur D. Spatt |
William D. Wall |
Insurance |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 112 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED, that the defendants motion for an order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, granting the defendant Peerless Insurance Company summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plain tiff did not suffer a serious injury, is denied, and its is further ORDERED, that the defendants motion for an order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, granting the defendant Peerless Insurance Company summary judgment dismissing the cause of action f or consequential damages based on a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, is denied, and it is further ORDERED, that the parties and attorneys are advised that this case is set down for trial on August 7, 2012. Signed by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 7/10/2012. (Coleman, Laurie) |
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 New York Eastern 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
Search for this case: Connolly v. Peerless Insurance Company | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.