From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weitz Co. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Dec 21, 2011
Civil Case No. 11-cv-00694-REB-BNB (D. Colo. Dec. 21, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 11-cv-00694-REB-BNB

12-21-2011

THE WEITZ COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and MOUNTAIN STATES MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants.


Judge Robert E. Blackburn


ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANTS,

OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND

MOUNTAIN STATES MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY

Blackburn, J.

The matter is before me on the Stipulation For Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claims Against Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company [#69] filed December 20, 2011. After reviewing the stipulation and the file, I conclude that the stipulation should be approved.

"[#69]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Stipulation For Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claims Against Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company

[#69] filed December 20, 2011, is APPROVED;

2. That plaintiff's First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Claims For Relief against defendants, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with each of the affected parties to pay its own attorney fees and costs;

3. That plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief against defendants, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with each of the affected parties to pay its own attorney fees and costs;

4. That nothing herein shall prohibit any party from bringing a future action for reallocation of defense costs paid by each party or reimbursement of defense costs not paid by Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company; and

5. That nothing herein shall limit the ability of any party to bring a future action for bad faith breach of an insurance contract, or any other claims, based on any acts or omissions occurring after the date of this order.

Dated December 21, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

____________

Robert E. Blackburn

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Weitz Co. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Dec 21, 2011
Civil Case No. 11-cv-00694-REB-BNB (D. Colo. Dec. 21, 2011)
Case details for

Weitz Co. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:THE WEITZ COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Dec 21, 2011

Citations

Civil Case No. 11-cv-00694-REB-BNB (D. Colo. Dec. 21, 2011)