Legal Opinion

Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Bear, LLC

District Court, S.D. California

Decided May 17, 2017No. Case No.: 15-cv-630-BTM-BLMPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 71] AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE [ECF No. 110]

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

Third-Party Defendant Marsh, USA Inc. (“Marsh”) has filed a motion for summary judgment. (Marsh’s Mot, Summ. J. (“Marsh’s MSJ”), ECF No. 71.) For the *1274reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an insurance coverage dispute under a marine insurance policy that Marsh brokered for a 102-foot motor vessel (“the Polar Bear”) owned by…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. T.W. Electrical Service, Inc. v. Pacific Electrical Contractors Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
  5. Memphis Community School District v. StachuraSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Certain Underwriters @ Lloyd's v. Bear, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
  2. Deer v. National General Ins. Co. (Dissent)Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2025

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API