§Why CasetextPricing

Southern Insurance Company v. Cjg Enterprises Inc., et al

First MOTION for Summary Judgment

14 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 243,535 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"

  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 222,599 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  3. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

    475 U.S. 574 (1986)   Cited 116,400 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

  4. Hartnagel v. Norman

    953 F.2d 394 (8th Cir. 1992)   Cited 984 times
    Concluding issue of material fact is genuine if it has a real basis in the record

  5. Reliance Nat. Indem. v. Knowles Ind. Ser

    2005 Me. 29 (Me. 2005)   Cited 132 times

    Docket: Yor-04-370. Argued: November 18, 2004. Decided: February 23, 2005. Appeal from the Superior Court, York County, Fritzsche, J. A. Richard Bailey, Esq. (orally), Cozen O'Connor, Philadelphia, PA, Neal F. Pratt, Esq., Peter S. Black, Esq., Verrill Dana, LLP, Portland, for plaintiffs. Gerard O. Fournier, Esq. (orally), Portland, for Knowles Industrial Services Corp. David P. Very, Esq. (orally), Norman, Hanson DeTroy, Esq., Portland, for Nutec Industrial Chemical, Inc. David P. Silk, Esq. (orally)

  6. Hartig Drug Company v. Hartig

    602 N.W.2d 794 (Iowa 1999)   Cited 101 times
    In Hartig Drug Co. v. Hartig, 602 N.W.2d 794 (Iowa 1999), the Iowa Supreme Court discussed the rules of contract interpretation.

  7. Lexington Ins. v. Entrex Comm

    275 Neb. 702 (Neb. 2008)   Cited 45 times
    Holding that "the scope of waived claims is delimited by the source of any insurance proceeds paying for the loss (i.e., whether the loss was paid by a policy 'applicable to the Work')"

  8. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Jefferson v. Teton Corp.

    30 N.E.3d 711 (Ind. 2015)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that "the AIA contract provides that even when the Owner has both builders-risk coverage for the work and separate property insurance for ‘adjoining or adjacent’ property, its subrogation waiver * * * extends to ‘fire or other perils covered by this separate property insurance policy,’ " because the separate provision would be "an anomaly within the AIA contractual scheme" if the parties already expected the liability insurance to cover "non-work damages"

  9. Allied Mutual Insurance Company v. Heiken

    675 N.W.2d 820 (Iowa 2004)   Cited 22 times
    Detailing a party's subrogation rights “are limited to the rights of recovery possessed by the insured” and are “subject to all defenses ... could [be] asserted against the insured”

  10. Penn Avenue Place v. Century Steel Erectors

    2002 Pa. Super. 133 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002)   Cited 14 times
    In Penn Avenue, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania applied Pennsylvania law to hold that the owner's insurer could not bring a subrogation action against either the general or subcontractor based on the negligence of the subcontractor.

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 339,516 times   162 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit