Ash Grove Cement Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al
| Ash Grove Cement Company |
| Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Travelers Insurance Company, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company |
| 3:2009cv00239 |
| February 26, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Insurance Office |
| Multnomah |
| Garr M. King |
| Both |
| Diversity |
| 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract |
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
433
OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees 377 and bill of costs 374 are granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $1,029,511.76 and costs in the amount of $11,198.96 . Plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment 381 is granted as follows: the judgment is amended to award Plaintiff $1,887,249.49 and prejudgment interest in the amount of $550.037.41. See 38-page opinion & order attached. Signed on 3/3/2014 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)
|
|
Filing
367
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Having weighed, evaluated, and considered the evidence presented at trial, the court finds the following activities to be outside the scope of the duty to defend: Nellermoes participation on committees other than the executive committee and time spent on the Aleris bankruptcy matter. Furthermore, the court finds that Nellermoes fees should be reduced by 25% for entries that suffer from block billing, vagueness, and billing in large increments of time. In conclusion, Plaintiff is awarded a sum of $1,887,907.82 for defense costs. See 24-page document attached. Signed on 8/5/2013 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (Redacted version) (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted version - FILED UNDER SEAL ) (mr)
|
|
Filing
208
Opinion and Order - Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Companys Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 175 , United States Fidelity and Guaranty Companys Joinder in Liberty Mutual Insurance Companys Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 180 , Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 186 , and Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company 191 are denied. Three motions to compel are pending. I ask counsel to confer and inform the court by July 15 which subparts of the motions still require resolution in light of this ruling. Signed on 6/20/2011 by Judge Garr M. King.( See formal Opinion and Order, 15-pages) (ecp)
|
|
Filing
145
Opinion and Order - USF&G's Motion for Joinder 123 is GRANTED. The defendants' Motion for Certification of an Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) 121 is GRANTED. Signed on 1/10/11 by Judge Garr M. King. (mja)
|
|
Filing
116
Opinion and Order - The EPA letter to Ash Grove was equivalent to a "suit seeking damages" under Ash Grove's liability policies, pursuant to the OECAA. The insurers have a duty to defend Ash Grove. Ash Grove's motions for pmiial s ummary judgment (doc. # 72, 80) are GRANTED. Liberty Mutual's motion for partial summary judgment (doc. # 55), in which USF & G joined, and USF & G's separate motion for partial summary judgment (doc. # 67) are DENIED. Signed on 9/30/2010 by Judge Garr M. King. (mja)
|
|
Filing
36
OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff Ash Grove Cement Company's Motion to Remand (#12) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 05/01/09 by Judge Garr M. King. (pvh)
|
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 Oregon 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.
