Lloyd Daniel v. Allstate Insurance Company, 13-30325 (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 13-30325
Visitors: 45
Filed: Oct. 15, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Case: 13-30325 Document: 00512407038 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 15, 2013 No. 13-30325 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk LLOYD J. DANIEL, Plaintiff - Appellant v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:12-CV-2933 Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURI
Summary: Case: 13-30325 Document: 00512407038 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 15, 2013 No. 13-30325 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk LLOYD J. DANIEL, Plaintiff - Appellant v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:12-CV-2933 Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIA..
More
Case: 13-30325 Document: 00512407038 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 15, 2013 No. 13-30325 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk LLOYD J. DANIEL, Plaintiff - Appellant v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:12-CV-2933 Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given by the court on March 6, 2013. Plaintiff on September 10, 2012 was given the 90 day notice of termination on December 31, 2013. The prior notice was rescinded and had no other effect. AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Source: CourtListener
