Legal Opinion
King v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
District Court, D. Kansas
Decided March 20, 1992No. Civ. A. 91-1037-BPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BELOT, District Judge.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1) as amended, the court finds that the parties have rested and that the defendant has been fully heard with respect to its claim that the plaintiff failed to cooperate and comply with the policy provision requiring the production of records. The court rules, as a matter of law, that there is no sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for defendant on that issue and accordingly, the court sustains plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to defendant’s affirmative defense that plaintiff failed…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Longobardi v. Chubb Ins. Co. of New JerseySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1990
- Royal College Shop, Inc., a Kansas Corporation, and Thomas H. Black, Cross-Appellees v. Northern Insurance Co. Of N.Y., Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
- Earth Scientists v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.District Court, D. Kansas · 1985
- Boone v. LowryCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1983
- Thompson v. West Virginia Essential Property InsuranceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1991
3Cited by10 opinions
- Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.District Court, D. Kansas · 1995
- Weller v. FarrisOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
- Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Federal InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2008
- Eldin v. Farmers Alliance Mutual InsuranceNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1994
- Eldin v. Farmers Alliance Mutual InsuranceNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1994
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.