Search for: "State v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co." Results 1 - 20 of 56
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jun 2015, 9:01 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
Title VII was already on the books, but, when first asked in General Electric Co. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 11:17 am by Law Lady
MetLife, 21 No. 40 Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage 7, Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage July 15, 2011Forty-five retired General Motors workers have filed a class-action lawsuit in Michigan state court, accusing Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. of unlawfully reducing their guaranteed life insurance benefits. [read post]
16 May 2015, 1:49 am by Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner
More recently, a Connecticut congressman and Mississippi Attorney General have made a formal request of the U.S. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 3:30 am
Adriatic Insurance Co.,345 F.3d 190, 204-05 (3d Cir.2003) which suggested an exception to the general rule that a new basis for jurisdiction may not be raised in a revised notice of removal. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 9:45 pm by Law Lady
Medicare Fraud: CLINIC OWNERS GET PRISON FOR STEALING MEDICARE FUNDS, United States v. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 12:57 pm by Eric Goldman
Harleysville Insurance * It May be Best to Shut Down Your Facebook Account While You are on Probation — State v. [read post]
21 Aug 2020, 9:05 am by Evan Schwartz
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (CIGNA) Supporting subjective claims with objective evidence The Miles Court gives claimants a roadmap of practical steps they can take to bolster their claims against insurance companies, who typically argue that subjective complaints of pain and disability are unsupported by objective tests, or exceed what their objective test results show. [read post]
17 May 2017, 6:52 am by Eric Goldman
Reed * Insurance Company’s Request to Compel Production of Facebook Password Fails (with Costs)–Chauvin v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 6:02 am by Bexis
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 818 A.2d 769 (Conn. 2003), the court held that a Connecticut consumer protection claim escaped preclusion under the state’s exclusive product liability statute because the claim “does not seek a remedy for personal injury, death or property damage. [read post]