National Casualty Company v. Fulton County, Georgia

Justia Dockets & Filings Eleventh Circuit Georgia Northern District National Casualty Company v. Fulton County, Georgia

National Casualty Company v. Fulton County, Georgia

Plaintiff:	National Casualty Company
Defendant:	Fulton County, Georgia
Case Number:	1:2016cv00679
Filed:	March 3, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Office:	Atlanta Office
County:	XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:	William S. Duffey
Nature of Suit:	Insurance
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2201
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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, 2018	Filing 51 OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Fulton County, Georgia's Motion for Summary Judgment 35 . It is granted because the Policies provide coverage for the Pay Parity Cases and no exclusion applies and denied because the Count y did not provide proper notice of the Pay Parity Cases to National, and because there is an issue of fact whether the County provided notice of the Chouhan claim. It is further ordered that National Casualty Company's Motion for Summary Judgmen t 36 is granted in part and denied in part. It is denied because the Policies provide coverage for the Pay Parity Cases and no exclusion applies. It is granted because the County did not provide proper notice of the Andrews, Allen, Benson, Bigelow, DeFoor, Lord, and Manchel cases, but denied because there is an issue of fact whether the County provided proper notice of the Chouhan claim. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 3/28/18. (ddm)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 28, 2018

Filing 51 OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Fulton County, Georgia's Motion for Summary Judgment 35 . It is granted because the Policies provide coverage for the Pay Parity Cases and no exclusion applies and denied because the Count y did not provide proper notice of the Pay Parity Cases to National, and because there is an issue of fact whether the County provided notice of the Chouhan claim. It is further ordered that National Casualty Company's Motion for Summary Judgmen t 36 is granted in part and denied in part. It is denied because the Policies provide coverage for the Pay Parity Cases and no exclusion applies. It is granted because the County did not provide proper notice of the Andrews, Allen, Benson, Bigelow, DeFoor, Lord, and Manchel cases, but denied because there is an issue of fact whether the County provided proper notice of the Chouhan claim. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 3/28/18. (ddm)

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: National Casualty Company v. Fulton County, Georgia
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: National Casualty Company
Represented By:	John Irvin Malone, Jr.
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: Fulton County, Georgia
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?