From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ASSURANCE CO. OF A. v. CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT CONS

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
Jun 8, 2009
Case No. 3:08-cv-0711 (M.D. Tenn. Jun. 8, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 3:08-cv-0711.

June 8, 2009


ORDER


For the reasons expressed in the accompanying memorandum, the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants Thomas C. McCord and Elaine E. McCord (Docket No. 45) is DENIED, and the motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff Assurance Company of America (Docket No. 52) is GRANTED with respect to all of the plaintiff's claims.

Additionally, the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' summary judgment sur-reply (Docket No. 75) is DENIED as moot, the defendants' motion to deem their additional statement of facts undisputed (Docket No. 80) is DENIED, and the defendants' motion in limine to exclude the plaintiff's rebuttal expert from testifying (Docket No. 85) is DENIED as moot.

It is so Ordered.


Summaries of

ASSURANCE CO. OF A. v. CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT CONS

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
Jun 8, 2009
Case No. 3:08-cv-0711 (M.D. Tenn. Jun. 8, 2009)
Case details for

ASSURANCE CO. OF A. v. CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT CONS

Case Details

Full title:ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

Date published: Jun 8, 2009

Citations

Case No. 3:08-cv-0711 (M.D. Tenn. Jun. 8, 2009)

Citing Cases

Crestbrook Ins. Co. v. Crosby

In the first, Assurance Co. of Am. v. Cont'l Dev. & Const., Inc., the underlying litigation involved the…

Ass. Co. of America v. Con'l. Dev. Con

Assurance asserts that the policy does not require it to indemnify or defend Continental to the extent that…