Bull v. Federated Mutual Insurance Company, 2:16-cv-00056-KGB. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20180910492
Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 07, 2018
Summary: JUDGMENT KRISTINE G. BAKER , District Judge . Consistent with the Order that was entered on this day, the Court grants defendant Federated Mutual Insurance Company's ("Federated") motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 16) and denies plaintiff Tony Bull's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 21). The Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Bull's claims; the relief requested by Mr. Bull is denied. Further, consistent with the Order that was entered on this day, the Court grants Federated th
Summary: JUDGMENT KRISTINE G. BAKER , District Judge . Consistent with the Order that was entered on this day, the Court grants defendant Federated Mutual Insurance Company's ("Federated") motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 16) and denies plaintiff Tony Bull's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 21). The Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Bull's claims; the relief requested by Mr. Bull is denied. Further, consistent with the Order that was entered on this day, the Court grants Federated the..
More
JUDGMENT
KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge.
Consistent with the Order that was entered on this day, the Court grants defendant Federated Mutual Insurance Company's ("Federated") motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 16) and denies plaintiff Tony Bull's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 21). The Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Bull's claims; the relief requested by Mr. Bull is denied.
Further, consistent with the Order that was entered on this day, the Court grants Federated the relief sought in its counterclaim. Accordingly, the Court makes the following declarations: (1) Policy No. 9229344 (the "Policy") excludes coverage of the claims made against Mr. Bull in the original complaint filed in James Haas v. Tony Bull, No. CV-2005-662, Crittenden County Circuit Court (hereinafter, the "Haas litigation"), the only complaint on which Mr. Bull sued in this action; (2) Federated has satisfied its duty to defend Mr. Bull in the underlying Haas litigation; and (3) Mr. Bull's separate counsel, David Hodges, is not entitled to compensation for his work in the underlying Haas litigation.
So ordered.
Source: Leagle
