From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burke v. Time Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Jan 26, 2012
Case No. 3:10-cv-0478 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 26, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 3:10-cv-0478

01-26-2012

KAREN BURKE, Plaintiff, v. TIME INSURANCE COMPANY, et. al. Defendants.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL: TERMINATION ENTRY

The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above matter has been settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice as to the parties, provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within 60 days, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated.

Parties intending to preserve this Court's jurisdiction to enforce the settlement should be aware of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994), and incorporate appropriate language in any substituted judgment entry.

The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement between the parties, if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________

WALTER HERBERT RICE, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Copies to:

All Counsel of Record


Summaries of

Burke v. Time Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Jan 26, 2012
Case No. 3:10-cv-0478 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 26, 2012)
Case details for

Burke v. Time Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:KAREN BURKE, Plaintiff, v. TIME INSURANCE COMPANY, et. al. Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jan 26, 2012

Citations

Case No. 3:10-cv-0478 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 26, 2012)

Citing Cases

Sinmier, LLC v. Everest Indem. Ins. Co.

There is an exception to the economic loss rule for claims "based upon a tort duty independent of…