Capitol Indemnity Corporation v. Ashanti et al
| Capitol Indemnity Corporation |
| ABC Insurance Company, LaVera Ashanti, David Adams, Marlene Adams, Jesse David Holloman and John Doe |
| Capitol Indemnity Corporation |
| Marlene Adams and David Adams |
| 0:2012cv01401 |
| June 12, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Jeanne J. Graham |
| Patrick J. Schiltz |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 |
| Defendant |
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
42
ORDER - Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 28 is GRANTED. The motion of defendants Marlene Adams and David Adams for summary judgment 34 is DENIED. The Adamses' counterclaim 2 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS. The Court DECLARES that Policy No. BP02030700, issued by plaintiff to defendant LaVera Ashanti effective February 14, 2011, does not provide coverage for the shooting of defendant Marlene Adams at Ashantis daycare on December 19, 2011, and plaintiff has no duty to defend or indemnify Ashanti in connection with any claim that the Adamses or others may bring against Ashanti with regard to the shooting. All claims against the unnamed defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 06/26/14. (BJS)
|
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 Minnesota 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.
