Federal Case Study

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

Even though the claim was first filed in 2007, the jury trial which leads to additional $1.5m contingency loss happened in 2009. Thus, the adjustment should be recorded an event in 2009.

However, they fail to distinguish between the initial question of economic outlay and the secondary issue of debt or equity. Only if the first question had an affirmative answer would the second arise. The tax court correctly determined that the appellant’s guarantees in itself have not constituted contributions of cash or other property which might increase the bases of the appellant’s stock.

The insureds, who live in a separate house on the same property, refute all of the plaintiffs’ allegations with the exception of their concession that a portion of the siding is missing from one of the exterior walls. They explained that during the renovation of the house, which was completed approximately one year before the plaintiffs took possession, they had a window removed from

All are protected by another scam company named Anthem Claims Management. This Company is run out of the home of Robin Ware located at 40937 N. Courage Trail Anthem, AZ. 85086-2537 (Phoenix). Anthem Claims Management phone number is (877) 476-5983 or (623) 551-5983. Robin Ware boasts to his less than legitimate moving company clients that he can save them from paying out big insurance premiums and claims by using his arbitration company, American Arbitration and Mediation Organization (AAMO), which is actually owned by Robin Ware who is coincidentally the arbiter. Now you can begin to understand why your property loss of $2,400.00 was arbitrated down to a mere $118.00 payout. If you find that your moving company is connected to Anthem Claims Management, the United States Movers Association (USMA), or the American Arbitration and Mediation Organization (AAMO), run as fast as you can to your nearest law enforcement agency or email

Mallor, Barnes, Langvardt, Prenkert, & McGrory, (2016 pp. 368-370) writes, “On November 15, 1998, Dr. John G. Griffith purchased a life insurance policy underwritten by United States Life Insurance Company unwritten through AMA Insurance Agency, Inc. (AMAIA). The Policy was for a 10–year term. The life insurance policy belonged to Dr. John G. Griffith was also the party that was insured by the policy. Dr. John G. Griffith’s wife Ms. Elizabeth Wilson was the primary beneficiary. Under the Policy, if Dr. Griffith died “while the policy insurance is in force,” then, upon presentation of proof of his death to U.S. Life, U.S. Life would pay Ms. Elizabeth Wilson the scheduled benefit. The scheduled benefit for death was $400,000.00 with an additional

2. Even though the judgment required M to pay W $18.5 million on September 24, 2009, M filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals in November 2009. Thus, the $18.5 million is not the fixed amount of loss to record yet.

In Maryland, insurance policies are generally construed in the same manner as contracts. Collier v. MD-Individual Practice Ass 'n, Inc., 327 Md. 1, 5, 607 A.2d 537 (1992). An insurance contract, like any other contract, is measured by its terms unless a statute, a regulation, or public policy is violated thereby. Pac. Indem. Co. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 302 Md. 383, 388, 488 A.2d 486 (1985). We do not follow the rule, adopted in other jurisdictions, that an insurance policy is to be construed most strongly against the insurer. Collier, 327 Md. at 5; Cheney, 315 Md. at 766. We construe the instrument as a whole in order to determine the parties’ intent. Pac. Indem., 302 Md. at 388; Collier, 327 Md. at 5; Aragona v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 281 Md. 371, 375, 378 A.2d 1346 (1977). In order to determine the intention of the parties, “Maryland courts should examine the character of the contract, its purpose, and the facts and circumstances of the parties at the time of execution.” Pac. Indem., 302 Md. at 388 (citations omitted). In doing so, we give the words their usual, ordinary, and accepted meanings. Id.; Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Ackerman, 162 Md. App. 1, 5, 872 A.2d 110 (2005) (citing Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Scherr, 101 Md. App. 690, 695, 647 A.2d 1297 (1994)). The test is what meaning a reasonably prudent layperson would attach to the term. Pac. Indem., 302 Md. at 388.

As demonstrated below, the petitioner had the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary in 2004 and 2005, even if its ordinary business income for those years was lower than the proffered wage.

no one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of principles 1 and 2. (Shaw, 2016, p.116).

Pre-settlement funding is a unique type of loan, which requires no collateral and no credit check; the risk is entirely on the lender. "What matters most is the case." said David Cooper who is the Chief Executive for Interstate Lawsuit Funding. "If we believe the case will win, we will

In an opening brief Wednesday, appellants Daryl Kollman and Helen Frazer argued that National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA should pay 9 percent interest dating back to September 2004 on the $4.1 million owed in a coverage row stemming from a decade-old $40 million jury verdict in a shareholder suit.

Vic is awarded $200,000.00 at trial. Gekko pays $100,000.00 in accordance with Donna’s auto policy coverage, and

Ethridge (Oct. 23, 2000), Warren App. No. CA2000-02-017, unreported (citing Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp. (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 179, 183 465 N.E.2d 1298.). In its Complaint, Apex states, "Defendants, in failing to return the $29,907.48 payment issued by the Nationwide Insurance Companies, have been unjustly enriched in the sum of $29,907.48." Complaint, ¶23. Therefore, Apex's theory of unjust enrichment is that Wells Fargo was unjustly enriched by the retention of the $29,907.48 paid by Nationwide. However, because Nationwide--not Apex--submitted the payment to Wells Fargo, Apex's unjust enrichment claim fails as a matter of law.

The exceptions to the Proper Plaintiff Rule in Foss v Harbottle allow the minority shareholders under some limited conditions to sue on behalf of the company. The common law derivative action (the CDA) is applied based on these exceptions. There are two basic requirements for applying the CDA: