Cases 1 - 8 of 8
NACK, D.M.D. et al v. UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION et al
as 2:2009cv04411
Plaintiff:
ROBERT L. NACK, D.M.D. and NACK, SCHNEIDERMAN & SCHNEIDERMAN, P.C.
Defendant:
UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION, PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, MONARCH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
SACKSTEIN, M.D. v. THE PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al
as 1:2008cv02160
Plaintiff:
STUART SACKSTEIN, M.D.
Defendant:
THE PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION and UNUM
Cause Of Action: Diversity
DELUCA v. UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION et al
as 2:2008cv02104
Plaintiff:
DOMINICK DELUCA
Defendant:
UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION, PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSRUANCE COMPANY, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
DILEO v. PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al
as 1:2008cv01063
Plaintiff:
JOAN DILEO
Defendant:
PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract
DILEO v. PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al
as 1:2008cv01065
Plaintiff:
JOAN DILEO
Defendant:
PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract
COLE v. UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION
as 2:2007cv05667
Plaintiff:
RICHARD COLE, JR.
Defendant:
UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract
HELLER, M.D. v. UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION
as 2:2007cv03721
Plaintiff:
STEVEN J. HELLER, M.D.
Defendant:
UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
WILDER v. DMR TECHNICAL GROUP, et al
as 3:2002cv00879
Plaintiff:
LAWRENCE V. WILDER, SR.
Defendant:
DMR TECHNICAL GROUP, AT&T, UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
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.
