State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Bonk

3 Citing cases

  1. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. Sheriff

    1:14-cv-2082 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 2015)   Cited 4 times

    As a result, this Summy factor weighs against our exercise of jurisdiction. Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Jones, 739 F.Supp.2d 746 (M.D. Pa. 2010); State Auto Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Bonk, No. 3:11-cv-1796, 2013 WL 3356045 (M.D. Pa. July 3, 2013). Specifically, Pennsylvania courts have not addressed the use of the verb "furnish" in an insurance policy's definition of "temporary worker," and whether the concept of an employer "furnishing" a worker to someone else is ambiguous.

  2. Schlegel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    CIVIL ACTION NO.3:11-CV-2190 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, no reasonable juror could conclude that State Farm had no reasonable basis for its request for medical documentation and, assuming State Farm required an affidavit, the Affidavit of Coverage. State Auto Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Bonk, 11-CV-1796, 2013 WL 3356045, *5 (M.D.Pa. July 3, 2013) (summary judgment standard). There is clear evidence on the record that State Farm requested medical documentation at least nine times over the course of a year, and plaintiffs never provided the requested information.

  3. Kromelbein v. Envision Payment Solutions, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-1598 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 1, 2013)   Cited 6 times

    This disagreement demonstrates the existence of a dispute of fact, and, because the court believes the volume of calls "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law," this dispute of fact is material. State Auto Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Bonk, 11-CV-1796, 2013 WL 3356045, *5 (M.D.Pa. 2013). Even if there was not a genuine dispute of fact, "the question of whether conduct harasses, oppresses, or abuses is a question of fact for a jury to decide."