Legal Opinion
Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Cloud Nine, LLC
District Court, D. Utah
Decided November 14, 2006No. 2:05-cr-00088PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION
CAMPBELL, District Judge.
The parties seek a ruling regarding the scope of two insurance companies’ duty to defend the Cloud Nine Defendants in the separate ease of Edizone LC v. Cloud Nine LLC, Case No. 1:04-CV-117-TS (D.Utah). One of the insurance companies, Unigard Insurance Company, agreed to defend the Cloud Nine Defendants in Edizone, whereas the other insurance company, The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, rejected the Cloud Nine Defendants’ initial tender of defense. Unigard, in its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, contends that Ohio Casualty, like…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
- The Frog, Switch & Manufacturing Co., Inc., in No. 98-7552 v. The Travelers Insurance Company (d.c. Civ. No. 98-Cv-00643) the Frog, Switch & Manufacturing Co., Inc., in No. 98-7553 v. United States Fire Insurance Company (d.c. Civ. No. 98-Cv-00758)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Walk v. Hartford Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cincinnati Insurance v. AMSCO WindowsDistrict Court, D. Utah · 2013
- Super Duper Inc. v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009
- Mountainville Commerce v. Auto-Owners Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Utah · 2025