ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY v. SANDERSVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY et al
| ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY |
| SANDERSVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY and JOHN LARRY FLOWERS |
| 5:2015cv00247 |
| June 24, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia |
| Macon Office |
| Washington |
| MARC THOMAS TREADWELL |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 |
| 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
50
ORDER DENYING 44 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court will convene a telephone conference for the purpose of determining if this Order disposes of this case or, otherwise, what further steps are appropriate. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 7/25/2017. (tlh)
|
|
Filing
43
ORDER DENYING 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court accordingly DENIES without prejudice the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment as to whether Evanston had a duty to defend Sandersville Railroad after the exhaustion of Sandersville Railroad's self-insured retention, and DENIES without prejudice the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment as to whether E vanston can recoup its defense costs from Sandersville Railroad. The parties may renew their motions for summary judgment on these issues by way of motions filed with briefs addressing these remaining issues. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 9/29/2016 (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.
