McLaughlin v. John Doe et al
| Katie McLaughlin |
| John Doe, Jane Doe and American Family Insurance Company |
| 2:2017cv00974 |
| June 27, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Seattle Office |
| King |
| Thomas S. Zilly |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| 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
21
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: Counsel having advised the Court that this matter has been resolved, and it appearing that no issue remains for the Court's determination, IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs. In the event settlement is not perfected, either party may move to reopen and trial will be scheduled, provided such motion is filed within 60 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)
|
|
Filing
19
MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part parties' 18 Stipulated Motion to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadlines: Jury Trial is set for 1/14/2019 before Judge Thomas S. Zilly. Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FR CP 26(a)(2) due by 5/11/2018, Motions due by 7/5/2018, Discovery completed by 8/13/2018, Dispositive motions due by 9/13/2018, Motions in Limine due by 12/13/2018, Pretrial Order due by 12/28/2018, Pretrial Conference set for 1/4/2019 at 01:30 PM before Judge Thomas S. Zilly. Trial briefs to be submitted by 12/28/2018, Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 12/28/2018. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)
|
|
Filing
16
MINUTE ORDER denying Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance Company's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment. The subject insurance policy in this lawsuit, policy no. 2020-4857-02-64, docket no. 12 -1 (the "Carson Policy"), extends Pe rsonal Injury Protection (PIP) and Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage to specified categories of "insured persons." Relevant to the Motion, the Carson Policy expressly provides PIP coverage to any other person who sustains bodily injury w hile... using the insured automobile...." Carson Policy, Personal Injury Protection Coverage, at 1. Although the Carson Policy does not contain similar language extending UIM coverage to other persons "using" the insured automobile, &q uot;those words are deemed contained in the endorsement 'by force of the UIM statute and judicial construction.'" As a matter of law, Plaintiff, who is not a named insured on the Carson Policy, is therefore entitled to either PIP or UI M coverage if she was "using" the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. The Carson Policy does not define the term "using" and the Court gives the word its ordinary meaning, with guidance from the multifactor test articulat ed in Butzberger. Although Defendant is correct that the interpretation of the Carson Policy language is a question of law, summary judgment is only appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact. The Court concludes that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. Defendant's "Motion to Strike" contained on pages 810 of its reply brief, docket no. 14 , is DENIED as moot. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (TH)
|
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 Washington 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
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.
