Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast v. RLI Insurance Company
Plaintiff: Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast
Defendant: RLI Insurance Company
Case Number: 5:2012cv02126
Filed: August 17, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office: Akron Office
County: Summit
Presiding Judge: Lesley Wells
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 20, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 113 Memorandum Opinion and Order Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs (ECF No. 110 ) is granted. The Court orders Plaintiff to pay Defendant $18,887.32. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 4/20/2018. (S,L)
March 31, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 105 Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 88 ), and grants Mazanec's motion for an award of costs (ECF No. 78 ), in part. It is hereby ordered that RLI pay Non-Party Mazanec, Raskin and Ryder Co. L.P.A. $14,174.32 for the costs of complying with the Modified Subpoena. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 3/31/2017. (JLG)
January 25, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 103 Memorandum of Opinion and Order for the reasons set forth herein, Defendant RLI Insurance Company's 99 Motion to stay Execution of Judgment is denied. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 1/25/2017. (E,CK)
September 21, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 91 Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff Selective's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 48 , is granted; Defendant RLI's Motion for Summary Judgment/Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 50 , is d enied; Plaintiff Selective's Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 57 , is granted; and Defendant RLI's Motion to Strike, ECF No. 59 , is granted. In sum, the trigger issue remains resolved in favor of Selective. RLI was the sole excess insurance carrier when the injury occurred. Accordingly, Selective is entitled to full recovery of the $3.25 million that it contributed to the settlement plus pre-judgment interest. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 9/21/2016. (JLG)
October 1, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 35 Memorandum of Opinion and Order granting defendant's Motion to clarify. Defendant's motion to certify interlcutory appeal is denied (related doc 32 ). Judge Lesley Wells(C,KA)
July 13, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 29 Memorandum Opinion and Order denying as moot Selective's Motion to certifiy question (Related Doc # 13 ); granting Selective's Motion for partial summary judgment (Related Doc # 14 ); and denying RLI's Motion for summary judgment (Related Doc # 15 ). Judge Lesley Wells(C,KA)
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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast v. RLI Insurance Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast
Represented By: Brian L. Wildermuth
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: RLI Insurance Company
Represented By: Kurt D. Anderson
Represented By: Richard M. Garner
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?