Wood v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company
| Thomas Scott Wood |
| Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company |
| 2:2017cv02330 |
| July 14, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| David G Campbell |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
287
ORDER- IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting the Page Anesthesia tax returns and the statement by the western region CMO. 2. Plaintiff's MIL (Doc. 257 ) is granted to the extent it seeks to preclude Defendant from prese nting evidence regarding its internal investigation of Plaintiffs claim that is contrary to the testimony of Ms. Daniels. Defendant is not precluded from arguing that its decision to await the decision of the Court, while continuing to pay benefits to Plaintiff, does not constitute bad faith. See attachment for further details. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 2/19/2021. (CLB)
|
|
Filing
282
ORDER that Defendant's MIL 1 245 is granted in part and denied in part as set forth. The Court will rule on witnesses Sullivan and Heatwole at the final pretrial conference. Defendant's MIL 2 246 is granted in part and denied in par t as set forth. The Court will rule on the Page Anesthesia tax returns at the final pretrial conference. Defendant's MIL 3 247 is granted in part and denied in part as set forth. The Court will rule on the statement by the western region CM O at the final pretrial conference. Defendant's MIL 4 248 is granted in part as set forth. The Court will address the remaining issues raised in this motion at the final pretrial conference. Defendant's MIL 5 249 is granted. Treating physicians may express only those opinions that were formed during the course of their treatment of Plaintiff. Defendant's MIL 6 250 is granted. Dr. Rovner is limited to stating opinions contained in his pre-deadline expert reports and his deposition. Defendant's MIL 7 251 is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above. It is granted with respect to Miller's testimony about the 1994 law firm report, and denied with respect to his opinion that Defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care. Plaintiff's MIL 257 will be decided after the discussion at the final pretrial conference. See attachment for further details. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 2/16/2021. (CLB)
|
|
Filing
235
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 213 Motion. Ms. Haigh is precluded from testifying about Plaintiffs understanding of the insurance policy, that Defendant ratified that understanding, and that Plaintiff's scheduling duties did not amount to a separate occupation. She is not precluded from testifying as a fact witness. Plaintiff's 227 Motion for Leave to File Surreply is granted. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 7/29/2020. (CLB)
|
|
Filing
230
ORDER re: 229 Joint Memorandum: The parties disagree on the issues to be resolved at trial. The Court makes the following rulings (See attachment for details). Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 6/8/2020. (CLB)
|
|
Filing
203
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 183 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 185 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 190 Motion to Continue; granting in part and denying in part 194 Motion to Strike ; denying 197 Motion for alternative relief. The Court will hold a telephonic hearing on 2/21/2020 at 2:30 PM to schedule a final pretrial conference and trial in this matter. Counsel who will be trying the case shall participate in the telephonic hearing. Counsel for Plaintiff shall initiate a conference call to include counsel for Defendant and the Court. If a dial-in number is to be used, counsel for Plaintiff shall provide the dial-in number to counsel for Defendant and the Court no later than 12:00 noon on 2/19/2020. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 2/3/2020.(DGC, nvo)
|
|
Filing
83
ORDER denying 80 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/26/2018.(DGC, nvo)
|
|
Filing
77
ORDER denying 46 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; finding as moot 49 Motion to Seal Document; granting 51 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 51 Motion to Continue; granting in part and denying in part 67 Motion to Strike. The parties shall, on or before 6/12/2018, submit a jointly proposed schedule for the remainder of this case. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/29/2018.(DGC, nvo)
|
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 Arizona 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: Wood v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Thomas Scott Wood | |
| Represented By: | Lawrence Robert Moon |
| Represented By: | Michael N Poli |
| 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: Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company | |
| Represented By: | Stephen M Bressler |
| Represented By: | Nicole Marie True |
| 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.
