Cases 1 - 5 of 5
U.S. Specialty Insurance Company v. Technical Construction Services, Inc. et al
as 1:2016cv06771
Defendant:
Daniel Abbate, River Management, LLC and Technical Construction Services, Inc.
Plaintiff:
U.S. Specialty Insurance Company and United States Surety Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
United States of America v. United States Surety Company et al
as 1:2014cv08117
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
United States Surety Company, U.S. Specialty Insurance Company and Moss Cappe, Limited Liability Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Davis-Ulmer Sprinkler Co., Inc. v. United States Surety Company et al
as 1:2008cv00560
Plaintiff:
Davis-Ulmer Sprinkler Co., Inc.
Defendant:
United States Surety Company, U.S. Specialty Insurance Company and The CFP Group, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Steeplejacks of America et al v. Puente Construction Enterprises et al
as 2:2008cv02034
Plaintiff:
Steeplejacks of America and Nicholas America
Defendant:
Puente Construction Enterprises, HCC Surety Group (United States Surety Company), Capital Roofing USA and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
The United States for the Use and Benefit of Platinum Mechanical, LLC v. United States Surety Company et al
as 7:2007cv03318
Plaintiff:
The United States for the Use and Benefit of Platinum Mechanical, LLC
Defendant:
United States Surety Company, US Specialty Insurance Company and The CFP Group, Inc.
Counter Claimant:
The CFP Group, Inc. and The CFP Group, Inc.
Counter Defendant:
The United States for the Use and Benefit of Platinum Mechanical, LLC, Utica Mutual Insurance Company and The United States for the Use and Benefit of Platinum Mechanical, LLC
ThirdParty Plaintiff:
The CFP Group, Inc.
ThirdParty Defendant:
Utica Mutual Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
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.
