M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Home
Verdicts
and
Decisions
Search Database
Recent Cases
Cases By Subject
Report A Case
Lawyers
Search Directory
By State & City
Recent Additions
Add A
Lawyer Listing
Court
Reporters
Recent Listings
Search
By States & City
Add A Basic
Reporter Listing
Expert
Witnesses
Recent Listings
Search Directory
By State & Expertise
Add A Basic
Expert Witness
Listing
MoreLaw
Store
The Store
Recent Listings
(Search)
Add A Basic
Classified Ad
Links
County Seats
State Links
National Links
International Pages
Information
MoreLaw Marketing
Contact MoreLaw


Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Date: 03-26-2009

Case Style: Parkham Industrial Distributors, Inc. dba Onsite Waste Management v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company

Case Number: 08-5453

Judge: Alice M. Batchelder

Court: United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on appeal from the Western District of Kentucky, McCracken County

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Parkham Industrial Distributors, Inc. appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to The Cincinnati Insurance Co., Inc. (“CIC”) on Parkham’s claims that CIC breached the terms of its insurance contract and showed bad faith in refusing to defend and indemnify Parkham against a lawsuit brought by Solidification Products International, Inc. (“SPI”). The district court held that the fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation claims in SPI’s First Amended Complaint did not allege an “advertising injury” covered by Parkham’s policy with CIC, and that, even if they did, those claims arose out of a patent infringement claim and were excluded from coverage. Having granted summary judgment to CIC on the breach-of-contract claim, the district court subsequently dismissed with prejudice Parkham’s claims of bad faith.

After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, the parties’ briefs and counsels’ arguments, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to CIC. As the district court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised, and clearly articulates the reasons underlying its decision, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose.

* * *

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0230n-06.pdf

Outcome: Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to CIC and dismissing Parkham’s Complaint.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
Home | Add Verdict | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Articles
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2009 MoreLaw.com, Inc.
MoreLaw Marketing
MoreLaw Marketing
Free Marketing

For Lawyers, Forensic Experts, Court Reporters and Other Businesses
Advertise on this site