Clemens et al v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company
| Bernie Clemens and Nicole Clemens |
| New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company |
| 3:2013cv02447 |
| September 24, 2013 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Scranton Office |
| Monroe |
| Richard P. Conaboy |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
247
ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry),(1)the plaintiffs petition for attorneys fees, (Doc. 215), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;(2)the petition is GRANTED to the extent that the plaintiff is awarded interest in the amoun t of $4,986.58;(3)the petition is DENIED in all other respects; and(4)the Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of the courts memorandum and order upon Paul J. Killion, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Pennsylvania Judicial Center, 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 2700, P.O. Box 62485, Harrisburg, PA 17106. ORDER TERMINATING CASESigned by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 8/29/17. (bs)
|
|
Filing
160
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)The Court recognizes that witnesses may, deliberately or inadvertently, wander into areas previously proscribed by rulings of this Court. In such circumstances the Court may have to reconsider its rulings and in certain circumstances even reverse them. Hopefully, this can be avoided by scrupulous preparation by counsel, however, witnesses often deliberately try to inject into the case matters which the Court has ruled are inappropriate under the circumstances of the pleadings. Whatever the cause, there may be need for the Court to reconsider some of the rulings issued on motions filed by counsel in this case.The Court has thoroughly and completely read and digested the extensive motion s and briefings filed in this case and, while the matters are lengthy and seemingly complicated, it is the hope of this Court that continued assiduous preparation will help counsel in presenting this case thoroughly and directly to a jury. It is als o the hope of the Court that its directions in making these rulings will enable counsel, especially in preparation of things like opening statements and examination of jurors, to move the trial along expeditiously and that only appropriate questions will be raised and discussed in the courtroom before the jury. An Order consistent with the foregoing Memorandum will be filed contemporaneously herewith.Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 6/15/15. (cc)
|
|
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)The Court is compelled to note at the outset that the hallmark of this case has been petulant and even acrimonious bickering among opposing counsel. The Court is also confounded that a relatively straightforward claim for underinsured motorist benefits that could not exceed $35,000.00 in value could have produced 83 docket items and more than 7,000 pages of correspondence and medical notes. That said, we turn to the question whether eit her party to this lawsuit may legitimately claim that no material fact is in dispute and that either one is now entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court concludes that the muddled record in this case cannot support summary judgment in favo r of either party. Three areas of material dispute have been identified in the Factual Background. These areas concern disputes involving the content and provision of medical authorizations, the efforts to arbitrate this matter, and the efforts to schedule Plaintiffs Statement Under Oath and deposition in this matter. In each of these areas, the parties exhibited a lack of civility and an inability to move this matter forward at a reasonable pace. This Court, having reviewed that record, sim ply cannot conclude that either party has demonstrated as a matter of law that the other side was unilaterally responsible for the long delay between Plaintiffs transmission of its Notice of Intent to file an underinsured motorist claim and the filin g of the complaint that initiated this matter. Nor can this Court find as a fact that, to the extent the long delay was attributable to the Defendant, it was or was not motivated by self-interest or ill will as required by Terletsky, supra.This matt er must be presented to a jury to make the ultimate determination whether Defendants conduct in this matter was so unreasonable as to constitute bad faith under 42 P.S. § 8371. However, the Court will observe that, due to Plaintiffs burden to p rove its case by clear and convincing evidence, and Plaintiffs persistent failures to cooperate in the discovery process and a failure to observe the literal requirements of Rule 56.1 of the local rules of court, Plaintiff escaped a judicial determin ation that bad faith cannot be determined from this record by the narrowest of margins. (See Memorandum) re 74 MOTION for Summary Judgment 64 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 1/15/15. (cc)
|
|
Filing
50
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)As a housekeeping matter, the Court is well aware that the time initially set for the completion of discovery in this case has elapsed. The inability of the parties to cooperate in the discovery p rocess, as evidenced by the motion practice which the Court is yet considering, has already resulted in this matter becoming more protracted than should have been necessary. As a result, the Court will issue a new time frame for the completion of di scovery and the parties are counseled to exert all reasonable effort to abide by that time frame. Orders consistent with these determinations will be filed contemporaneously herewith.(See Memorandum)Dated: July 14, 2014Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 7/14/14. (cc)
|
|
Filing
40
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) Defendants Motions to Compel Discovery (Doc. 34 and 36) seek information that is potentially relevant to issues raised in this lawsuit. Additionally, the information sought in these motions is, ge nerally, neither oppressive nor unduly burdensome to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, with the exception of limitations on production of joint tax returns discussed above, these motions must be granted.An order consistent with these determinations will be filed contemporaneously herewith.re 36 MOTION to Compel Discovery 34 MOTION to Compel Discovery Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 6/4/14. (cc)
|
|
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)For the reasons discussed above, Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Bad Faith Claim is denied. Defendants Motion to Strike those paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint dealing with Defendants adv ertising practices, its conduct toward other insureds, and its alleged violations of UIPA are granted. All other aspects of Plaintiffs Motion to Strike are denied. An Order consistent with these determinations will be filed contemporaneously herewith.Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 2/24/14. (cc)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Middle 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.
