HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY et al v. PETTIS et al
| HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY and HARLEYSVILLE WORCESTER INSURANCE COMPANY |
| CHERYL PETTIS, KENNETH MICHAEL DURDEN and MID-GEORGIA ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC. |
| 5:2019cv00485 |
| December 9, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia |
| MARC THOMAS TREADWELL |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 11, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Consent Form (28 USC 636(c)(1)) sent to HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY and HARLEYSVILLE WORCESTER INSURANCE COMPANY (cma) |
| Filing 2 Summons Issued as to KENNETH MICHAEL DURDEN, MID-GEORGIA ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC., and CHERYL PETTIS. (Attachments: #1 Kenneth Michael Durden, #2 Mid-Georgia Electrical Services, Inc.)(cma) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants Fee paid: Receipt # AGAMDC-3335221, $400 filed by HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, HARLEYSVILLE WORCESTER INSURANCE COMPANY (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Underlying Complaint, #2 Exhibit B - Reservation of Rights Letter, #3 Exhibit C - Primary Insurance Policy, #4 Exhibit D - Umbrella Insurance Policy, #5 Civil Cover Sheet, #6 Summons Cheryl Pettis, #7 Summons Kenneth Michael Durden, #8 Summons Mid-Georgia Electrical Services, Inc.)(KIRBY, SETH) |
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 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.
