Ellis et al v. Arrowood Indemnity Company
| James A. Ellis and James A. Ellis & Associates, Architects, PSC |
| Arrowood Indemnity Company |
| Arrowood Indemnity Company |
| James A. Ellis and James A. Ellis & Associates, Architects, PSC |
| 7:2012cv00140 |
| December 6, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Pikeville Office |
| Pike |
| Amul R. Thapar |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract |
| Both |
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
137
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Arrowood's motion for summary judgment, R. 121 , is GRANTED as to Ellis Parties' claims that accrued before November 5, 2007, and DENIED as to Ellis Parties other claims. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 4/30/2015. (RCB)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
90
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) The Ellis Parties' motion for summary judgment, R. 82 , is GRANTED. (2) Arrowood's motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract and restitution counterclaims, R. 81 , is DENIED. (3) Arrowood's motion for summary judgment on the Ellis Parties' bad faith claims, R. 81 , is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Arrowood may refile its claim within thirty days after Magistrate Judge Smith issues a ruling on its motion for a protective order, R. 57 . If Arrowood does not do so, Court will set pretrial and trial dates in this case. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 6/23/2014. (RCB)cc: COR
|
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 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.
