From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prusky v. Allstate Life Insurance Company

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 30, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-cv-05156 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 30, 2010)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-cv-05156.

September 30, 2010


ORDER


AND NOW, this 30th day of September, after consideration of the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 26), the plaintiff's response (Doc. 28), the defendant's reply (Doc. 30), and the plaintiff's surrebuttal (Doc. 31), I HEREBY ORDER that:

1. The defendant's motion to dismiss Count I of the plaintiffs' complaint is DENIED.

2. The defendant's motion to dismiss Count II of the plaintiffs' complaint is GRANTED.

3. The defendant's motion to dismiss Count III of the plaintiffs' complaint is DENIED.

4. The defendant's motion to dismiss Count IV of the plaintiffs' complaint is GRANTED.

5. The defendant's motion to dismiss Count V of the plaintiffs' complaint is DENIED.

6. The defendant's motion to dismiss Count VI of the plaintiffs' complaint is DENIED.


Summaries of

Prusky v. Allstate Life Insurance Company

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 30, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-cv-05156 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 30, 2010)
Case details for

Prusky v. Allstate Life Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:PAUL M. PRUSKY, et al., Plaintiffs v. ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Sep 30, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-cv-05156 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 30, 2010)

Citing Cases

Lightstyles, Ltd. v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co.

We will therefore examine the merits of the equitable estoppel claim. See Prusky v. Allstate Life Ins. Co.,…

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Jerry Ellis Constr.

While the Court has concluded that the terms of the Policy must be interpreted under Indiana law, the Court…