From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Optica, Inc. v. Metro Public Adjustment, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Jul 21, 2005
Civil Action No. 03-5065 (D.N.J. Jul. 21, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 03-5065.

July 21, 2005


ORDER


This matter having come before the Court on Defendants The Traveler's Indemnity Company of America and Metro Public Adjustment, Inc., Daniel M. Young, and Robert DeCecco (collectively the "Metro Defendants") individual motions for summary judgment, and Plaintiff Optica, Inc.'s cross-motion for summary judgment as against only Defendant Travelers, and the Court having considered the parties' submissions; and for good cause shown;

IT IS this 21st day of July, 2005 hereby

ORDERED that summary judgment is GRANTED as to Defendant Travelers Indemnity Company of America Motion for Summary Judgment [11] as set forth in the accompanying opinion;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement as against Defendant Travelers Indemnity Company of America [14] is DENIED and Optica's claim against Travelers is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that summary judgment is GRANTED as to Defendant Metro Public Motion for Summary Judgment [13] as set forth in the accompanying opinion as it relates to the charges of fraud, misrepresentation, consumer fraud, and negligence;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that summary judgment is DENIED as to Defendant Metro Public Motion for Summary Judgment [13] as it relates to its breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims.


Summaries of

Optica, Inc. v. Metro Public Adjustment, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Jul 21, 2005
Civil Action No. 03-5065 (D.N.J. Jul. 21, 2005)
Case details for

Optica, Inc. v. Metro Public Adjustment, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:OPTICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. METRO PUBLIC ADJUSTMENT, INC., TRAVELERS…

Court:United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Jul 21, 2005

Citations

Civil Action No. 03-5065 (D.N.J. Jul. 21, 2005)

Citing Cases

Sines v. Darling Ingredients Inc.

Relatedly, negligence entails “(1) a duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty…

Hutchinson v. Delaware Savings Bank FSB

Compl. at ¶ 89) See Tumi v. Excel Corp., No. 05-0477, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16027 at *7-8 (D.N.J. Aug. 1,…