Legal Opinion
Ostrof v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided May 21, 2001No. CIV. No. PJM 99-2988PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MESSITTE, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Herbert Ostrof and LaCountess B. Corbitt, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, have filed suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. As insureds under automobile insurance policies of State Farm, they allege that, pursuant to an illegal plan of State Farm, they were denied reimbursement for medical bills and lost income under the personal injury protection (PIP) provision of the policies. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Class Certification, State Farm has filed a Motion to Disqualify Ostrof as Putative Class…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- O'Shea v. LittletonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- David Hanon v. Dataproducts Corporation Jack C. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Rosario v. LivaditisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. KaklamanosSupreme Court of Florida · 2003
- Creveling v. Government Employees InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Anderson v. Aset Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 2004
- Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2007
- Johnson v. Geico Casualty Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 2015
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.