Asher et al v. Unarco Material Handling, Inc. et al
Case Number: 6:2006cv00548
Filed: December 18, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Office: London Office
Presiding Judge: Danny C. Reeves
Presiding Judge: Robert E. Wier
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
Jury Demanded By: Both
RSS 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
September 7, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 893 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) The parties' joint motion to reopen the case, R. 890 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (2) The parties' joint motion to stay proceedings, vacate prior orders, and dismiss the case, R. 891 , is DENIED WITHOUT P REJUDICE IN PART and DISMISSED AS MOOT IN PART. The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to the motion to vacate. The motion is DISMISSED AS MOOT with respect to the motions to stay and dismiss. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 9/7/2012.(RBB)cc: COR
July 26, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 863 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1) Unarco's motion for summary judgment [R. 843] is GRANTED; 2) Atlas's motion for summary judgment [R. 842] is DENIED. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 7/26/2011.(RC)cc: COR
June 29, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 862 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Courts previous Order, R. 835, is AMENDED to reflect that Unarcos motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to its claim for indemnity. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 6/29/2011.(RC)cc: COR
January 6, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 835 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Unarco's motion for partial summary judgment, R. 820, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Unarco's claim for breach of contract as it pertains to Lexington's dut y to provide a defense. The motion is DENIED with respect to Unarco's claim for indemnity. (2) Unarco's motion for summary judgment on its claims for damages flowing from the breach of the duty to defend, R. 820, are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDIC E; (3) Lexingtons motion for summary judgment, R. 821 , is DENIED; (4) Lexington's motion to strike the affidavit of Ann Cherry, R. 825 , is DENIED AS MOOT. Motions terminated: 821 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Lexington Insurance Company filed by Lexington Insurance Company, 825 MOTION to Strike 820 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Unarco Material Handling, Inc. by Lexington Insurance Company filed by Lexington Insurance Company. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 1/6/2011. (RBB)cc: COR
July 28, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 814 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Conclusion: Kentucky law must apply. None of the Restatement factors demonstrate an overwhelming interest in applying Illinois law. Though Kentucky also lacks a particularly strong interest in this case, without Atlas, Il linois lacks a significant relationship to the transaction and the parties to overcome the presumption in favor of Kentucky law. Illinois has a limited interest in regulating insurance contracts issued in Illinois and written to comply with Illinois law. Although the contract was written, negotiated, and executed in Illinois, Unarco was not a party to the original transaction and Atlas, the signatory to the contract, is not involved in this dispute. Next, the parties intent reveals no reason to apply Illinois law. Lexington knew Atlas performed work in different states and if it wanted Illinois law to apply, it should have solidified its intent by including a choice of law provision. Finally, uniformity and consistency cut in favor of apply ing Kentucky law, since its tort law was applied to the underlying conflict and the insured was doing work in Kentucky. Therefore, without an overwhelming interest on Illinois' behalf, Kentucky's preference for its own law applies to Unarco's claims under the Lexington insurance policy. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 7/28/2010.(RBB)cc: COR
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 Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Asher et al v. Unarco Material Handling, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?