Legal Opinion
Frisenda v. Floyd
United States District Court
Decided April 5, 2018No. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17CV89Published
1Opinion of the Court
IRENE M. KEELEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State *871Farm"), has filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, presenting the question whether West Virginia law requires that it pay a pro rata share of the attorney's fees and costs incurred by the plaintiff, Dawn Frisenda ("Frisenda"), when State Farm applies the non-duplication of benefits provision applicable to Frisenda's underinsured motorist ("UIM") coverage. Concluding that State Farm is under no such obligation, the Court GRANTS the motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt.…
2Cases cited16 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
- Boeing Co. v. Van GemertSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchenSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- State Automobile Mutual Insurance v. YoulerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1990
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.