Opinion
2:22-cv-00738-JAD-VCF
10-14-2022
IVO HURVITZ, individually, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, DOES I through X inclusive, and ROE CORPORATIONS I thought X, inclusive, Defendants.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES J. REAM, James J. Ream, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 3573, Attorney for Plaintiff, Ivo Hurvitz. WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP, Darren Brenner, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8386 Lindsay D. Dragon, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13474, Attorneys for Defendant, Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES J. REAM, James J. Ream, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 3573, Attorney for Plaintiff, Ivo Hurvitz.
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP, Darren Brenner, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8386 Lindsay D. Dragon, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13474, Attorneys for Defendant, Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY CASE ECF NO. 7
This Stipulation to Stay Case is entered into by Plaintiff, Ivo Hurvitz (Plaintiff), and Defendant, Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest (Hartford), (collectively, the Parties), by and through their counsel of record.
This case arises out of a personal automobile policy. The policy includes underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. Plaintiff alleges various injuries following a motor vehicle accident, including, a traumatic brain injury, loss of income and damages for future anticipated care which Plaintiff has articulated in a life-care plan. Plaintiff also claims ongoing cognitive impairment due to the collision.
The Hartford, under a policy of underinsured motorist coverage, paid an uncontested sum of $60,000.00. Additionally, The Hartford has paid approximately $30,000.00 under a medical payments policy Plaintiff owned at the time of the collision. Plaintiff asserts that The Hartford has handled his claim improperly. The Hartford denies Plaintiff's allegations, or otherwise asserts it was provided insufficient information to complete its evaluation of the claim.
Parties have been discussing alternative dispute resolution (specifically, arbitration) and agree to stay the case for 90 days.
At the conclusion of 90 days, the parties will submit their proposed joint discovery plan.
Wherefore, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that this matter shall be stayed for 90 days to allow Parties to discuss alternative dispute resolution.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the Parties will be required to submit their proposed joint discovery plan at the conclusion of 90 days from the order on this stipulation.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Based on the parties' stipulation [7] and good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED. This Case is STAYED for all purposes until January 12, 2023.