Legal Opinion
Peterson v. State Farm Lloyds
District Court, W.D. Texas
Decided March 16, 2017No. Cause No.: A-16-CA-493-SSPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
SAM SPARKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and specifically Defendant State Farm Lloyds’ Motion for Summary Judgment [# 14]. Plaintiff Eric Peterson did not file a timely response.1 Having re*559viewed the documents, the governing law, and the file as a whole, the Court now enters the following opinion and order.
Background
This is an insurance coverage dispute. Plaintiff owns a house in Austin, Texas, and obtained a homeowner’s insurance policy (Policy) from Defendant for the policy period of June 7, 2014 through…
2Cases cited19 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
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Beka One LLC v. RLI INSURANCE COMPANYDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 2024
- Hall v. Allstate Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 2024
- Stasek (Hansen) v. State Farm LloydsDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2025