INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER NEW YORK v. FIRE FIGHTER SALES & SERVICE CO
| INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER NEW YORK |
| FIRE FIGHTER SALES & SERVICE CO |
| 2:2011cv01078 |
| August 19, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Allegheny |
| Joy Flowers Conti |
| Other Personal Property Damage |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
300
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 283 defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law; and 259 plaintiff's motion to vacate order granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's negligence claim. This memorandum opinion: (1) ex plains in detail why the court denied plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (ECF No. 259 ) and concluded Pennsylvania's "gist of the action" doctrine barred plaintiff's general negligence claim against defendant; and (2) explains why the court will deny as moot defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). (ECF No. 283 .) An order denying defendant's Rule 50(b) motion will follow. Signed by Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 12/8/2015. (bgm)
|
|
Filing
225
REVISED MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons set forth in 223 and as ordered in 224 , this is a revised version of the opinion re: summary judgment 174 . Except as set forth by the court in 223 , the opinion 174 and order 175 entered 2/20/15 will remain in full force and effect. Signed by Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 7/27/15. (kjm)
|
|
Filing
174
MEMORANDUM OPINION granting in part and denying in part 139 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 149 Motion to Strike 161 MOTION to Deem Facts Admitted re 146 Response filed by INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER NEW YORK to Fire Fighter 's Concise Statement of Material Facts. The motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Fire Fighter Sales & Service Co. (ECF. No. 139) is GRANTED as to Count I of the Second Amended Complaint (Professional Negligence) and DENIED as to Count II of the Second Amended Complaint (Breach of Contract). The motion to strike (ECF No. 149) and motion to deem facts admitted (ECF No. 161) filed by Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York are each DENIED, as set forth more fully within. Signed by Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 2/20/2015. (cal ) Modified on 2/20/2015 to correct typo. (cal)
|
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 Pennsylvania Western 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
| Search for this case: INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER NEW YORK v. FIRE FIGHTER SALES & SERVICE CO | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER NEW YORK | |
| Represented By: | Matthew D. Matkov |
| 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: FIRE FIGHTER SALES & SERVICE CO | |
| Represented By: | Matthew F. Dolfi |
| Represented By: | John A. Robb, Jr. |
| 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.
