Markel American Insurance Company v. Unnerstall et al
||Markel American Insurance Company
||John J. Unnerstall and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
||August 13, 2007
||Missouri Eastern District Court
||St. Louis Office
||Donald J. Stohr
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
||28:2201 Declaratory Judgement
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|January 9, 2009
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Markel American Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment [Doc. # 19 ] is granted in part and denied in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Markel American Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to its prayer for a declaration that it has no further obligation to defendant or to indemnify defendant John J. Unnerstall with regard to any remaining claims arising out of the incident of May 27, 2005. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Markel American Insurance Companys motion for summary judgment is denied in all other respects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before January 19, 2009,plaintiff Markel American Insurance Company shall either volu ntarily dismiss the remainder of its action, or file with the Court a memorandum presenting disputed facts demonstrating that it is a party to or third-party beneficiary of the insurance contract between defendant John J. Unnerstall and defendant Firemans Fund Insurance Company, such that it has standing to seek a declaration of rights therefrom. Signed by Honorable Donald J. Stohr on 1/9/09. (KJF, )
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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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.