Attorneys Insurance Mutual Risk Retention Group, Inc. v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District Attorneys Insurance Mutual Risk Retention Group, Inc. v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, Inc.

Attorneys Insurance Mutual Risk Retention Group, Inc. v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Attorneys Insurance Mutual Risk Retention Group, Inc.
Defendant:	Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, Inc.
Case Number:	2:2015cv04756
Filed:	June 23, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Jacqueline Chooljian
Presiding Judge:	Fernando M. Olguin
Nature of Suit:	Insurance

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
March 28, 2017	Filing 38 JUDGMENT by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT ISADJUDGED that (1) Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation has a duty to defend J.Wayne Allen in Ruth McClamma Stueve, et al. v. Raymond Novell, et al., Orange County Sup. Ct., Case No. 30-2010-00411651 pursuan t to the 2010-2011 Liberty Policy; (2) Liberty is obligated to reimburse Attorneys Insurance Mutual Risk Retention Group for one-half of the fees and costs incurred as of 6/2/2016 defending Allen in the Civil Action; and (3) Liberty is obligated to contribute one-half of the fees and costs incurred after 6/2/2016, towards Allen defense in the Civil Action. The parties shall bear their own costs and fees in the instant action. The above-captioned action is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jp)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 28, 2017

Filing 38 JUDGMENT by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT ISADJUDGED that (1) Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation has a duty to defend J.Wayne Allen in Ruth McClamma Stueve, et al. v. Raymond Novell, et al., Orange County Sup. Ct., Case No. 30-2010-00411651 pursuan t to the 2010-2011 Liberty Policy; (2) Liberty is obligated to reimburse Attorneys Insurance Mutual Risk Retention Group for one-half of the fees and costs incurred as of 6/2/2016 defending Allen in the Civil Action; and (3) Liberty is obligated to contribute one-half of the fees and costs incurred after 6/2/2016, towards Allen defense in the Civil Action. The parties shall bear their own costs and fees in the instant action. The above-captioned action is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jp)

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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Attorneys Insurance Mutual Risk Retention Group, Inc. v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Attorneys Insurance Mutual Risk Retention Group, Inc.
Represented By:	William S Berman
Represented By:	Richard D Hoffman
Represented By:	Katherine L Nichols
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: Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, Inc.
Represented By:	Bryan M Weiss
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.

Why Is My Information Online?