GRIMES v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
| CHELSEA GRIMES |
| STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY |
| 1:2018cv01039 |
| April 4, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Matthew P. Brookman |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
| Plaintiff |
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
61
Order on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30) - Plaintiff Chelsea Grimes brings claims against Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") for breach of contract and breach of the duty of fair dealing and good faith. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1.) Specifically, Grimes alleges that she should be covered as a "resident relative" under her parents' underinsured motor vehicle policy with State Farm. (Id. 7.) She also alleges Stat e Farm has breached their duty of good faith by failing to promptly settle her claim. (Id. 10.) State Farm now moves for summary judgment. (ECF No. 30.) For the following reasons, State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Grimes' claims are dismissed on the merits with prejudice. A final judgment will be entered separately. ***SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*** Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 12/3/2019. (JDC)
|
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 Indiana Southern 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.
