Admiral Indemnity Company et al v. 899 Plymouth Court Condominium Association et al
| Admiral Indemnity Company and Clermont Specialty Managers |
| 899 Plymouth Court Condominium Association, D&K Real Estate Service Corporation, Burton Gilberg, Jan Gilberg, Bala Ghimire and Annapurna, Inc. |
| 1:2016cv05085 |
| May 10, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| Matthew F. Kennelly |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
43
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 1/24/2017: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on count 4 of its complaint but o therwise denies plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 29] and grants summary judgment in favor of defendant on counts 1 and 2 of plaintiff's complaint with regard to the issue of duty to defend but otherwise denies defendants� 39; motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 17]. The case is set for a status hearing on February 8, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., in chambers (Room 2188), to set a schedule for discovery and pretrial proceedings. The parties are directed to confer in advance of the hearing to attempt to agree on a schedule to propose to the Court. (mk)
|
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 Illinois Northern 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.
