Legal Opinion
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. v. Phoenix Assurance Co.
District Court, S.D. Illinois
Decided August 4, 1997No. 95-CV-4001-JLFPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
FOREMAN, District Judge:
Before the Court is Defendant Phoenix’s “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for Post-July 1,1993 Losses and Losses Caused by Delay” filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (Doe. 87). Archer Daniels Midland Company and its subsidiaries (collectively, “ADM”) have filed a response (Doc. 120) and Phoenix has filed a Reply (Doe. 126). This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
I. Introduction.
For a discussion of the facts leading to this litigation see Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. v. Phoenix Assur. Co. of New…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1992
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Wilkin Insulation Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1991
- R.E. Wood, Jr. And Julie Wood v. Mid-Valley IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
- Lapham-Hickey Steel Corp. v. Protection Mutual InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1995
- Travelers Insurance Companies v. Penda CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kimta v. Royal InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
- KIMTA AS v. Royal Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2000
- Northwestern Selecta, Inc. v. Guardian Insurance Company, Inc.District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 2021