Case Analysis Of L And V Contractors, Llc V. Heritage Warranty Insurance Risk Retention Group

HOUSTON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Inez Grant; Morehouse Parish School Board; Horace Mann Insurance Company and Lloyd Gray, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees.

Quality Associates, Inc., a consulting firm, advises its clients about sampling and statistical procedures that can be used to control their manufacturing processes. IN one particular application, a client game quality associates a sample of 800 observations taken during a time in which that client's process was operating satisfactorily. The sample standard deviation for there data was .21 ; hence, with so much data, the population standard deviation was assumed to be .21. Quality associates then suggested that random samples of size 30 be taken periodically to monitor the process on an ongoing basis. BY analyzing the new samples, the client could quickly learn whether the process was operating satisfactorily. when the process was not

In the case against Sage Rent-A-Car the defendant filed a surety bond with the superintendent of insurance when it incorporated. Therefore, the court should dismiss the suit against Sage Rent-A-Car for failing to state a claim under rule NMRA 1-012B(6). Also under section 66-5-207(E) (1988) of the New Mexico Financial Responsibility Act states, “a motor vehicle approved as a self-insured by the superintendent of insurance is exempt from the act. Therefore, the defendant is not liable for any damages due to filing a surety bond with the New Mexico superintendent and for being self-insured. Lastly, under New Mexico case law Las Lumarias of the N.M Council v. Isengard, 92 N.M 297, 300-301 (Ct. App. 1978) the court held a motion to dismiss due to the plaintiff not being able to recover or be entitled to relief under any state of facts provided under the claim. As one can see under the statutes provided and case law the defendant Sage Rent-A-Car is not liable for damages per the New Mexico Financial Responsibility Act not constituting negligence due to Sage’s actions when

Herein will begin with an overview and introduction from personal knowledge of DixieLands Glory, LLC; a small family owned and operated business for the purpose of owning and managing rental properties. The company was initially operated as Warf’s Rentals; in 2003 the business was renamed and incorporated to become DixieLands Glory, LLC. The business is operated from a small office located in the family’s home, which is located in Linden, Tennessee. DixieLands Glory owns, operate, and manage approximately eighty-five rental units ranging from single-family homes to 4-plexes and mobile home parks. The properties that the company owns are mostly located in the states of Tennessee and Alabama. Of this, about 50 percent are located in the family’s hometown of Linden, Tennessee, with the remainder being located in two other Tennessee counties, and Decatur, Alabama.

(the defendant). Cruz’s parents sent an email to Fagor on the date of the occurrence detailing said incident, and the defendant responded by denying liability. Cruz filed a complaint against Fagor alleging causes of action for negligence and product liability. Through his attorney, Cruz mailed the summons and complaint addressed to the company’s Chairman of the Board through certified mail requesting a return receipt. The receipt indicated that the envelope was accepted and signed for by an individual at the company headquarters, but Fagor failed to file an answer or make any appearance until after the plaintiff had entered a motion for a default judgment against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion to set aside the entry of default and the default judgment, which the court granted on the grounds that there was no proof that the summons and complaint:

This case is Azte Inc. v Auto Collection, Inc., 2012 NY Slip Op 51731(Unpublished) [36 Misc. 3d 1238] (US Supreme Court, Kings County, 2012).

Jeffery Calkin, the defendant, leased a vehicle for our client, Sage Rent-A-Car Inc., and was involved in a car accident with the plaintiff, Jane White. A negligence suit was filed by Ms. White against Mr. Calkin and our client, Sage Rent-A-Car Inc. The suit claims that our client is required to carry insurance and therefore has a duty to assume responsibility for this accident under the provisions of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act (MFRA).

At the time of the accident, Jesse was driving the car owned and registered in the name of Qantas Airways Ltd, the 2nd defendant at the invitation and supervision of Imbree on Larapinta Drive, between Kings Canyon and Hermann burg in April 2002. Imbree was allowed to use the car for his personal use.

As a follow up to our phone conversation this date, Allstate investigated an intersection accident which occurred on October 4, 2016 in Fairfax, Virginia. Upon completion of our investigation found Geico insured Karen Finger to be the proximate cause of the loss and 100% liable. We determined Ms. Finger failed to maintain proper lookout and yield the right of way while attempting to make a turn and therefore was 100% liable for the loss. Allstate’s investigation found no liability on our insured driver, Nathaniel

In 2011, Alfredo Ramos (Ramos) purchased a used car from Pena’s Motors in Brentwood, California. The negotiations of the sale were conducted in Spanish (Ramos’ native language). In consummating the sale, Ramos signed a Conditional Sales Contract and Security Agreement (contract) in English; however, Ramos was given a copy of the contract in Spanish, as well. Ramos also elected to purchase a GAP insurance policy that would pay the difference between the cash value of the vehicle and the remaining balance owed (on the car) in the event the vehicle was totaled. Ramos was not provided a copy of this GAP policy in Spanish, only English. Both the contract and GAP policy were later assigned to the defendant, Westlake Services, LLC (Westlake).

The insured believed this was within the scope of work performed by PNA. The three parties agreed to conduct an investigation to determine cause, while also agreeing to negotiate a tolling agreement to preserve the rights of all involved. However, in March 2010 the insured filed suit against both Turner & PNA alleging breach of contract, warranty & fiduciary duty including negligent supervision, failing to properly design, fabricate & install trim

The insured, Manny Patel is the owner and operator at Canyon Car Company a wholesale, retail car dealership. Patel showed proof of purchase and the bill of lading of a 1994 Mercedes E500W that he purchased through an online auction on June 3, 2015. Through contracting with Elite Auto Shipper and paying $600.00 to have the vehicle shipped to his dealership, Elite Auto Shipper contracted with No Doubt Logistics Inc. to pick-up and transported the car from San Antonio, Texas. Patel claims the vehicle three days late being delivered and discovered freshly new damage to the vehicle that contradicted the minor damages already noted within the damage summary report when he first purchased the car.

Marlene then proceeded to file a lawsuit against the auto dealer for malicious prosecution. In the end, a settlement of $100,000.00 was awarded to Marlene of which $30,000.00 was allocated to the attorney in adherence to the contract stipulation of 30% of any proceeds. The attorney issues a check of $70,000.00

This loss involves a wrongful death action of a 16 year old male passenger on the insured’s bus (open air double decker) in Los Angles Ca. The claimant was invited to attend his friends sweet sixteen party, where the friends parents (Schlossberg), charted the bus from the insured for a tour of Los Angeles. During the tour the sixteen year olds (minors) were on the top level while the adults remained on the deck below. Since the minors were not interested in the tour, the tour guide (provided by the insured) joined the other adults on the deck below.

"[a]n insurance company has a duty to act in good faith in settling claims and a breach of that duty will give rise to a cause of action by the insured." Pasipanki v. Morton, 61 Ohio App. 3d 184, 185, 572 N.E.2d 234 (1990) (quoting Bean v. Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 9th Dist. No. 13543, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 4275, 1988 WL 114464 at *1 (Oct. 26, 1988)). Gekko did not act in good faith to settle Vic’s claim against Donna, and their failure to do so enables Donna has a cause of action against Gekko.