Liberty Mutual has paid PIP benefits totaling to date: $5,307.81. (B) Additional Background Information The plaintiff was served with the following discovery requests: 1. Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company’s First Request for Production of Documents, Things, and Medical Directed to Plaintiff Scott Moore 2. Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company’s First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Plaintiff w/ authorizations 3. Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company’s First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Regarding Collateral Sources In this case, Liberty Mutual has paid certain PIP benefits for and/or on behalf of the Plaintiff Scott Moore. The plaintiff was involved in three separate
HOUSTON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Inez Grant; Morehouse Parish School Board; Horace Mann Insurance Company and Lloyd Gray, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees.
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
Applicant’s attorney, Mr. Juan Vera, appeared representing the applicant’s interest. Court reporting duties were provided by Ms. Elizabeth Maeyama, License No. 12060. Interpreting services were provided by Ms. Berta ZeFrench, Certification No. 36353581. The deposition started at approximately 2:24 p.m. and lasted until 3:15 p.m. The applicant testified that she arrived at applicant’s attorney’s office at 1:00 p.m. to prepare for her deposition; therefore, I anticipate applicant’s attorney’s office’s §5710 invoice to be for no more than two hours and 15 minutes. I will make a more specific recommendation regarding the yet to
Zamudio, Human Resources Administrator and acting custodian of personnel records of the Domino Realty Management Company who allowed access, and copies in support of any relevant information pertaining to any injuries, had located a “Work/School Status Report” under the name of the “Talbert Medical Group.” The document had placed the claimant off from work from 2-5-01 through 2-5-01 for pain to the claimants left knee, and yet, according to Ms. Zamudio, the document did not state that a work related injury occurred as there were no other documentation in support of an injury. Furthermore, the witnesses had not cited any job related incidents where the claimants left knee from 2001 had been injured were the alleged 2001 left knee had been irritated or exacerbated in any
Plaintiff’s allegations must show that Maloney’s behavior was sufficient to prove he is liable. Maloney’s commissions for the sale of insurance policies are insufficient evidence that he acted
In their cross-appeal, (Case A96A0616), plaintiffs challenged the trial court’s denial of their motion for pre-judgement interest. Plaintiffs rely on Grisset v. Wilson, 181 Ga. App. 727,728 (1) (353 S.E.2d 621) (1987), in which it held that a single notice of demand can cover multiple claims, and the notice covered the spouse’s consortium claim as well as the injured plaintiff’s personal injury claim. In reviewing the full demand letter, it “leads us to conclude that the demand letter encompassed only Jeffrey’s claim and the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for pre-judgement
This court case involved the plaintiff Hamptons Landscaping Service Inc., who had been represented by Lieb at Law, P.C. This side of the case then was seeking summary judgment to recover $17,217.00, from the defendants Michael & Frances Sherman who had been represented by Kelly and Hulme, P.C. which was alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment causes of action. The Sherman’s had crossed moved seeking an order dismissing Hampton's complaint, also had asserting that Second
Plaintiff Randy Law, for his cause of action against Defendant Piper Reed complains and alleges as follows:
Defendant, Aaron Mercer (“Mercer”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby answers the Interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff, Danielle Price and states as follows:
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Winder HMA, LLC d/b/a Barrow Regional Medical Center (“Plaintiff” or “Barrow”), by and through its attorneys of record and supplements it responses to Third-Party Defendant Rhett K. Rainey’s First Request for Production of Documents as follows:
As to the plaintiff’s remaining claims under the ICFPA, the defendants argued that claims failed because the complaint did not contain any allegations regarding “contracts of insurance” or claims against insurance companies, but solely contained allegations related to Medicare and Medicaid. However, the court allowed the action under
Prior to the accident, Plaintiff purchased a disability insurance policy (the “Policy”) from Defendant Common Insurance Company in New Amsterdam which provided issued insurance policy to Plaintiff.