ACREE v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY
| JUVENILE and CYNTHIA ACREE |
| HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY |
| 5:2012cv00051 |
| February 8, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia |
| Macon Office |
| Upson |
| Marc Thomas Treadwell |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 1001 |
| Defendant |
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
35
ORDER DENYING 9 Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 10 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. The case is REMANDED to Hartford for reconsideration of the Plaintiffs' clai ms for AD&D benefits. On remand, Hartford should conduct a good faith, de novo review which takes into account the federal common law presumptions against suicide and in favor of accident and should consider all information, documentation, comments, and records that the Plaintiffs submit into the reopened record. This action is STAYED pending completion of the administrative review and further Order of the Court. The Parties shall file a joint status report every 30 days from the entry of this Order. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 1/10/2013. (tlh)
|
|
Filing
25
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 21 Motion to Seal Document. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 9/25/2012. (tlh)
|
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 Georgia 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.
