Sevila et al v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
| Fausto Sevila and Candida Sevila |
| Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company |
| Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company |
| Candida Sevila and Fausto Sevila |
| 8:2013cv00978 |
| April 17, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Tampa Office |
| Hillsborough |
| Elizabeth A. Kovachevich |
| Thomas G. Wilson |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
| Both |
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
31
JUDGMENT in favor of Candida Sevila, Fausto Sevila against Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company Signed by Deputy Clerk on 3/19/2014. (JNB)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER granting 17 Motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs areentitled to findings that: (i) They are entitled to full subsidence investigation in accordance with Florida Statute, §627.707 (2010), and(ii) "Structural damage" means, "damage to the structure". The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for the Plaintiffs and to close this case.As to the request of attorneys' fees in Plaintiffs' amended complaint, the Court grants the parties forty-five (45) days to resolve the issue. If the parties cannot come to an agreement then the Plaintiffs will have fifteen (15) days thereafter to file any appropriate motion.. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 3/18/2014. (SN)
|
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 Florida Middle 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.
