Clarendon America Insurance Company v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company et al
| Clarendon America Insurance Company |
| Mt. Hawley Insurance Company and DOES 1 - 100, inclusive |
| 2:2007cv07351 |
| November 8, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Los Angeles |
| Gary A. Feess |
| Jeffrey W. Johnson |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
| None |
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
37
JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF CLARENDON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION ADN AGAINST DEFENDANT HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY: That plaintiff recover from defendant the sum of $180,000.00 as equitable indemnification for the amount paid by p laintiff to indemnify DB in connection with the underlying arbitration, with interest thereon at the applicable rate from the date of entry of this judgment until paid; That plaintiff recover from defendant pre-judgment interest in the sum of $1 8,000.00, representing one year's interest on the above described principal, at the applicable rate of ten (10%) per annum, from the date of plaintiff's underlying payment on 10/9/07, by Judge Gary A. Feess, in favor of Clarendon America Insurance Company against Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (bp)
|
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 California Central 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
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.
