Legal Opinion

Young v. Chubb Group of Ins. Companies

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided December 15, 2003No. 3:03 CV 7301PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KATZ, Judge.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for remand, and for costs and fees (Doc. No. 5) as to which Defendant has filed an opposition thereto (Doc. No. 9). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs motion will be denied. 1

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises as a Scott-Pontzer 2 action in which Plaintiffs seek uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM/UIM”) coverage under insurance policies issued by Defendant insurance companies. This Court previously remanded this action after determining that the direct action proviso of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) destroyed diversity…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. SchachtSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  2. Westfield Insurance v. GalatisOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Jeffrey D. Brierly, Administrator of the Estate of Paul Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc. David EllisonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
  4. Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mutual Fire InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario v. City of DetroitCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1989

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. A.S. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
  2. Wisconsin v. Amgen, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
  3. Dudley v. Putnam Investment FundsDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2007
  4. In Re Pharm. Industry Average Wholesale PriceDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2006
  5. Haag v. WebsterDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 2006

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

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

Powered by the Exa API