This loss arises out of a motor vehicle accident in the state of MT where the cede’s insured crossed the centerline and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle. Both the plaintiff operator and his passenger sustained serious injury resulting extensive medical care. Under Mt law, insurers are required to advance pay bodily injury/medical payments where liability is reasonably clear. Based on unfavorable liability the cede tendered their policy limits of $100,000. After cede tendering their limits, the plaintiff’s attorney argued the liability limits should be stacked entitling the plaintiffs to $400,000 (4 vehicle listed on the policy). The cede declined the plaintiffs demand and filed a motion for declaratory relief, arguing they satisfied its obligation under the terms of the policy. Thereafter, a court mediation was scheduled where the cede declined to participate, arguing, their policy limits is exhausted further noting there is no stacking of limits in MT. The plaintiff’s attorney was successful in obtaining a mediated consent judgement against the insured for $5,250,000, while also raising Bad Faith & Unfair Trade Practices. The cede filed a motion to appeal the judgement. …show more content…
As part of the order, the court ruled the cede was estopped from denying the stacking of limits & was liable for the judgement of $5,250,000.The issues of Bad Faith & Unfair Trade Practices remained pending. Defense counsel review of the court order found appealable issues, but did not believe it would be succeed in reducing the consent judgement against the
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
Judicial History: The District court of Iowa granted a motion for summary judgement in favor of National By-Products, Inc. The court determined that Dale Dyer had an invalid claim to bring forth a lawsuit, thus lacking consideration to create a contract.
...d to follow the approach of NSWCA, after considering the reasoning in Dao. Now it is consistent in this issue across NSW and Victoria.
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
Wressel’s next claim against SUM will be a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that SUM violated Wressel’s
There are numerous facts about this case that will be legally significant. The facts about the accident would include:
It is unfortunate that accidents that result in injuries are a part of life. Further more it is also unfortunate that often the party responsible for said accident do not feel compelled to offer compensation to the party affected. However in spite of this, there is still hope for the injured party thanks to personal injury lawyers. They are tasked with representing their clients who suffered from these events while making sure that their clients receive the compensation that they deserve. Ultimately personal injury lawyers play a big role with regards to safety initiatives by helping those injured, which is something that we all should aspire to do.
According to the facts in this case, Walkovszky was hit by a cab four years ago in New York and the cab was negligently operated by defendant Marches. The defendant Carlton, who is being sued, owned and ran the cab company in which he set up ten corporations, including Seon. Each of the corporations had two cabs registered in its name. The minimum automobile liability insurance required by the law was $10,000. According to the opinion of the court the plaintiff asserted that he is also ?entitled to hold their stock holder personally liable for damages, because multiple corporate structures constitutes an unlawful attempt to defraud the general member of the public.?
Both passengers of the vehicle have currently filed suit against the company for compensatory damages. Compensatory damages are intended to provide relief to the affected individuals. The driver of the vehicle has suffered a back injury which prohibits him from participating in military training. This has directly resulted in his inability to deploy so he can sue the company for the money that he would have received had he deploye...
The defendants were Dr. Stotler along with Aetna, provider of professional liability insurance for Dr. Stotler, and the hospital along with Argonaut Insurance Co., the insurer of the hospital. The first court affirms the jury’s verdict and the defendants were found liable for the death of the infant.
Did the court find specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in this case?
The Responsibility for Accident case is about an argument between an employee, called John Schmidt, and his employer. The dispute occurred when John seriously injured his hand when operating a machine in the production shop and neither John nor the company
During the court, P4P issued the Decision Letter (No.660/48/17-10/IX/PHK/4-1999) that the defendant was not allowed to dismiss their employees. The reason was because there was not agreement between the defendant and the 153 employees. The defendant refused that Decision Letter because that would cause the defendant should give the job to the employees back and should pay their wage.
The legal issue in this case was first, whether the sum of RM 750 should be reduced by about half because the plaintiff spent only...