Legal Opinion
J.M.P.H. Wetherell v. Sentry Reinsurance, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided July 31, 1990No. 85-7061PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
O’NEILL, District Judge.
I. Introduction.
This is a non-jury dispute concerning reinsurance coverage. Plaintiffs are insur- anee underwriters. 1 Defendant Cole, Booth, Potter, Inc. (“CBP”) is a reinsurance intermediary. Defendant Phoenix General Insurance Co. (“Phoenix”) is a corporation which provides reinsurance coverage. 2 Plaintiffs, CBP and Phoenix have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 3 For the reasons that follow, I will grant Phoenix’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs and CBP, deny CBP’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs and Phoenix, and…
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Virginia J. Barry Melville v. American Home Assurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
- Karl R. Smith v. Pittsburgh Gage and Supply CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Agere Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Environmental Technology Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
- Allstate Insurance v. Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2006
- L.R. Willson & Sons, Inc. v. PMA GroupDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1994
- Cordova v. Scottsdale InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2001