Frederick Mutual Insurance Case Summary

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

This claim arises out of a lawsuit filed in Kane County, Illinois involving an incident at Johnny A’s Third Rail Pub, a local pub owned by the Insured, Beslidheje, Inc. Mr. Tefik Ashiku owns and operates the Insured corporate entity. The pub operates out of a building owned by the co-defendant, Junaid Zubairi. Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges negligence against both Beslidheje, Inc. and Zubairi, claiming that the stairway had insufficient or inoperative lighting at the time she fell.

The Association alleged in its lawsuit that certain elements of the property were not constructed in a good and workmanlike manner including 1) failure to properly install and flash windows and other exterior penetrations; 2) properly caulk the exterior penetrations; 3) failure to properly install the weather resistive barrier; 4) failure to properly to install the stucco exterior; 5) failure to properly install the EIFS exterior and 6) failure to install brick exterior.

Background: Based on the given complaint, on the 28th of March in 2014 the Plaintiff, Linda D. Daugherty suffered an injury on the property of Rauleigh J. Ringer at 814 N. Liberty Street, Alexandria, IN. She is claiming her injury was a result of negligence spawning from the actions, or lack thereof, by Mr. Ringer and Casual Lifestyles Realty, Inc., in which the connection of these three parties has not been clarified with certainty within the claim. The Defendants, by counsel, Mark Maynard, and, pursuant to Rule 12(E) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, moved for a more definite statement of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Mark Maynard argues if said Plaintiff could amend her complaint that is supposedly so vague and ambiguous, the newfound clarity would help the defense frame a response to said Plaintiff’s claim. No other information could be

(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:

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

Cross-Complainants are homeowners whose home was substantially damaged by a fire, and required reconstruction. Beginning on or about August 21, 2015 Cross-Defendants induced Cross-Complainants to engage Crestline Builders, Inc. to reconstruct Cross-Complainants’ Home by representing to the Bolanos that all reconstruction improvements shall be completed in four months. Further, Cross-Defendants induced Cross-Complainants to engage Crestline Builders, Inc. to reconstruct Cross-Complainants’ Home by representing to the Bolanos that that the price of the reconstruction improvements would be the amount approved by the Bolanos’ insurance.

David A. Goldmeier and Terry C. Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company 337 F.3d 629 (6th Cir 2003) case supports our

COMES NOW, Defendant the State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”), by and through Mark J. Stiller, Esq., Bryant S. Green, Esq., and Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP, and hereby files this Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Respond to Discovery pursuant to Md. Rule 3-421(h), and in support thereof, states as follows:

Laurence Kaye (“Kaye”), appellant, an attorney, represented Linda Wilson-Gaskins (“Wilson-Gaskins”), appellee, in a wrongful termination lawsuit filed against Wilson-Gaskins’s former employer, Government Employees Insurance Co. (“GEICO”). Following that representation, Wilson-Gaskins filed a complaint against Kaye alleging “legal malpractice.” The Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted summary judgment in favor of Kaye and dismissed Wilson-Gaskins’s complaint. Wilson-Gaskins appealed the dismissal of her claim. We affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court and held that Wilson-Gaskins failed to make a prima facie case for professional negligence. We further held that a release contained in a settlement agreement between the parties

State Farm has asked whether it has a duty to defend the insured pursuant to the insured’s homeowners policy. It is our opinion that State Farm has no duty to defend the insured under the insured’s homeowners policy. The insured’s homeowners policy entitled the insured to a defense for “a suit brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence.” In this case, these elements initially triggering the insured’s homeowners policy are likely satisfied. Nevertheless, the SECTON II – Exclusions section provides that the liability coverage does not apply to any of the fifteen exclusions specifically enumerated therein.

Police involvement was necessary since security was unable to assist that night; security services are complementary since the guard must service all three of Ms. Miner’s complexes, thus encouraging the use of police with emergency situations. Ms. Miner was uneasy when she learned about the assault and personally emailed the Plaintiff to inquire about her condition and to clarify that damages to the unit be repaired. Yet, Plaintiff responded by placing the blame on her ex-boyfriend for the damage, claiming that he wasn’t a guest (Exhibit 7); nonetheless, Plaintiff reluctantly paid $2500 for repair costs

The company also have environmental claims; for personal injury and property damage alleging the release of or exposure to hazardous materials.

The plaintiff also claims that the insured had a French door, that the plaintiff obtained, installed in the study that was too small to allow the furniture in the study to be removed (Count II - $5,825.00); recommended and had installed two chandeliers that failed to provide sufficient illumination (Count III - $2,017.98); incorrectly placed a light switch that controlled the living room lighting (Count IV - $2,705.00); caused damage to her HVAC system when dust created during replacement of incorrectly installed flooring (Count V - $984.40); overcharging for installation of pieces of art on the walls (Count VI - amount to be determined); and that the insured breached the implied warranty of workmanlike quality for services (Count VII).