Search for: "Allstate Insurance Co. v. Doe" Results 21 - 40 of 333
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Oct 2014, 10:01 am by Scott Andrews
In granting summary judgment in favor of Allstate, the lower courts relied on jurisprudential language holding that, "it is well-settled that a person who does not qualify as a liability insured under a policy of insurance is not entitled to UM coverage under the policy" as a basis for finding that there was no UM coverage for the accident at issue under the co-owner's Allstate policy. [read post]
6 Nov 2017, 2:09 pm by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
”If a husband and wife, or both, are named in the policy, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 7:06 pm by Joy Waltemath
Below, the Ninth Circuit concluded in Jimenez v Allstate Insurance Co that a district court did not abuse its discretion in applying Rule 23’s commonality requirement because the common questions it identified would drive answers to the elements of an off-the-clock claim under California law. [read post]
8 Apr 2010, 10:23 am
Allstate Insurance Co., ___ S.Ct. ___, 2010 WL 1222272 (March 31, 2010), the United States Supreme Court held that a state law prohibiting a particular type of class action does not apply in a federal court sitting in diversity. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 6:58 am by Mark S. Humphreys
This issue was also discussed in the 1994, Texas Supreme Court case styled, Allstate Insurance Company v. [read post]
29 Mar 2009, 12:23 pm
In response to this argument, the Defendant's attorney asserts that the insurer's failure to timely disclaim coverage does not preclude it from later denying liability on the ground that the insurance agreement itself does not cover the particular automobile or person. [read post]
4 May 2009, 7:07 am
Allstate Insurance Co. (08-1008); Graham v. [read post]