Legal Opinion
Schray v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided November 22, 2005No. 04-1777-KIPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
KING, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Mark and Ann Schray’s home was sided with a synthetic stucco product which failed after improper installation, leading to extensive damage to the home. To recover the money spent on repairs, the Schrays filed a claim against their homeowner’s policy. The insurer denied coverage. In this action, the Schrays sue the insurer seeking coverage under the policy. Before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (# 24). For the reasons below, I deny the motion.
FACTS
The insurer moves to strike paragraphs 7 to 16 of the McGarrigle Declaration.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Yogman v. ParrottOregon Supreme Court · 1997
- Hoffman Construction Co. of Alaska v. Fred S. James & Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1992
- James L. Ticknor Janet Ticknor Larry Ticknor Tickco Holding, L.L.C. Ticknor Lodging Corporation v. Choice Hotels International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Rosen v. State Farm General InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Malbco Holdings, LLC v. Amco InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2009
- Roberts v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2017
- MacHeca Transport Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011
- Association of Unit Owners of Nestani v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 2009
- Malbco Holdings, LLC v. AMCO InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2010
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.