Ebrahimian et al v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company
| Moosa Ebrahimian and Shiela Ebrahimian |
| Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company |
| 2:2011cv04136 |
| August 25, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Arthur D. Spatt |
| A. Kathleen Tomlinson |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1446 Notice of Removal |
| None |
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
51
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - In sum, the Court finds that certain issues of fact exist as to the Plaintiffs breach of contract claim, but that the Plaintiffs claims of bad faith and for punitive and special damages fail as a matter of law. Thus , based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED, that the Defendants motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted in part to the extent the Court dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiffs claims for (1) undocumented Additional Living Expense s incurred after the Defendant requested such documentation; (2) construction-related expenses required to bring the Plaintiffs Home to code; (3) vermin-related expenses in the Plaintiffs home; (4) bad faith disclaimer of coverage; (5) punitive and special damages; and it is further ORDERED, that the Defendants motion for summary judgment is otherwise denied. Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 6/10/2013. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
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 New York 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.
