Cases 1 - 10 of 24
Martin et al v. Howard Memorial Hospital et al
as 4:2023cv04030
Plaintiff:
Bonita Martin, Bill Roberts and Pamela Garza
Defendant:
Howard Memorial Hospital and John Doe Insurance Carrier
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal
HUDSON PALMER HOMES, INC. v. EVEREST NATIONAL INS. CO. et al
as 2:2021mc00003
Defendant:
STARSTONE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE CO. and others
Debtor In Possession:
HUDSON PALMER HOMES, INC.
Plaintiff:
GARY F. SEITZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0157
First State Insurance Company v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
as 21-30
Counter Claimant:
Swiss Reinsurance America Company, Successor, Forum Insurance Co., ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company and Central National Insurance Company of Omaha
Defendant:
Doe Insurers, 1 through 10, Columbia Casualty Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and others
Plaintiff:
First State Insurance Company and New England Reinsurance Corporation
Defendant / Appellant:
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., Successor, Familian Corporation
Defendant / Appellee:
American Home Assurance Company, Oakwood Insurance Company, as successor by merger to Central National Insurance Company of Omaha, but only as to policies issued by Cravens, Dargan & Company, Pacific Coast, and its subsidiaries and Swiss Reinsurance America Company, Successor, Forum Insurance Company
Lynch v. Judicial Branch
as 20-3759
Defendant:
J. Doe, 125 and Doe Insurance Company
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Daniel M. Lynch
Defendant / Appellee:
Green and Gross, P.C., Eric M. Gross, Thomas G. Smith and others
HUDSON PALMER HOMES, INC. et al v. CRUM & FOSTER SPECIALITY INS. CO., ET AL.
as 2:2020mc00064
Defendant:
AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE CO., STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY CO., EVERETT NATIONAL INS. CO. and others
Plaintiff:
GARY F. SEITZ
Debtor In Possession:
HUDSON PALMER HOMES, INC.
Respondent:
Residents Association of the Villages at Trewellyn, PRAJZNER CASE HOMEOWNERS and MOSTOCHUK CASE HOMEOWNERS
Interested Party:
Jamie Cohen, et al, M. Catherine Coleman, et al., Joseph and Susan Koshy, et al. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0157
Tamm Consulting v. The Cincinnati Insurance Compa
as 20-1032
Defendant / Appellee:
Turner Engineering, P.C., Turner Forensics, The Cincinnati Insurance Company and others
Defendant:
John Doe Companies, John Does and John Doe Insurance Companies, Whose Names Are Unknown and Who Made Evaluations, Decisions, and Payment or Non-Payment Decisions , including by not Limited to Claims, Damage, Liability, Subrogation, and/or Reinsurance
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Einar Tamm and Tamm Consulting
Carty v. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA et al
as 3:2019cv00088
Defendant:
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, Ascendancy USVI, LLC and John Doe Insurance Company
Plaintiff:
Yvane Carty and Marmion Carty
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Slack v. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA et al
as 3:2019cv00089
Defendant:
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, Ascendancy,USVI, LLC and Jane Doe Insurance Company
Plaintiff:
Delita Slack
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Tamm Consulting v. The Cincinnati Insurance Compa
as 19-2363
Defendant / Appellee:
Turner Engineering, P.C., Turner Forensics, The Cincinnati Insurance Company and others
Defendant:
John Doe Companies, John Does and John Doe Insurance Companies, Whose Names Are Unknown and Who Made Evaluations, Decisions, and Payment or Non-Payment Decisions , including by not Limited to Claims, Damage, Liability, Subrogation, and/or Reinsurance
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Einar Tamm and Tamm Consulting
The County Commission of Fayette County, West Virginia v. Seminole West Virginia Mining Complex, LLC et al
as 2:2019cv00113
Defendant:
Mike Isabell, Seminole West Virginia Mining Complex, LLC, Doe Insurers 1 through 10 and others
Interested Party:
Larry E. Harrah
Plaintiff:
The County Commission of Fayette County, West Virginia
Cause Of Action: 33 U.S.C. § 1365
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.
