The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Holcim (US), Inc. et al

Case Number: 1:2006cv00317
Filed: May 18, 2006
Court: Alabama Southern District Court
Office: Mobile Office
Referring Judge: Bert W. Milling
Presiding Judge: William H. Steele
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
October 13, 2010 147 Opinion or Order of the Court Order denying 124 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Industrial Services of Mobile, Inc., granting 128 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. Judgment will be entered in favor of Ohio Casualty o n all claims joined by and between it, on the one side, and Holcim (US), Inc., Edward Thierry and Dennis Odom, on the other. The Court declares that Ohio Casualty is not obligated to indemnify Holcim (US), Inc., Edward Thierry or Dennis Odom under t he terms of its policy. Holcim's counterclaim against Ohio Casualty for breach of contract is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate as parties Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, Edward Thierry and Dennis Odom. This case will proceed to trial with respect to the remaining claims joined by and between Holcim and ISOM. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 10/13/10. (tgw)

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 Alabama Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Holcim (US), Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
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.

Why Is My Information Online?