GRITZ et al v. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Plaintiff: REMO GRITZ and MAUREEN GRITZ
Defendant: METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Case Number: 2:2010cv01605
Filed: December 2, 2010
Court: Pennsylvania Western District Court
Office: Pittsburgh Office
County: Allegheny
Presiding Judge: David S. Cercone
Nature of Suit: Marine
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

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 Pennsylvania Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: GRITZ et al v. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: REMO GRITZ
Represented By: Scott A. Westcott
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: MAUREEN GRITZ
Represented By: Scott A. Westcott
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 ]
Defendant: METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Represented By: Patricia A. Monahan
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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.