New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Blackjack Cove, LLC et al
Filing
216
ORDER: For the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum, the Court denies New Hampshire's first motion for partial summary judgment, 86 ; grants in part (as to establishing the fact that the insurance policy at issue does not require Blackjack to repair or replace the damaged property) and denies in part (as to all other issues) Blackjack Cove's motion for partial summary judgment, 88 ; grants in part (as to Blackjack's claim for damages stemming from New Hampshire 039;s alleged failure to "total" docks at the marina) and denies in part (as to all other issues) New Hampshire's second motion for partial summary judgment, 133 ; and denies New Hampshire's motion to strike, 139 . It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 3/26/14. (tmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO.,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
BLACKJACK COVE, LLC
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:10-cv-607
Judge Sharp
ORDER
For the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum, the Court denies New
Hampshire’s first motion for partial summary judgment, (Docket No. 86); grants in part (as to
establishing the fact that the insurance policy at issue does not require Blackjack to repair or
replace the damaged property) and denies in part (as to all other issues) Blackjack Cove’s motion
for partial summary judgment, (Docket No. 88); grants in part (as to Blackjack’s claim for
damages stemming from New Hampshire’s alleged failure to “total” docks at the marina) and
denies in part (as to all other issues) New Hampshire’s second motion for partial summary
judgment, (Docket No. 133); and denies New Hampshire’s motion to strike, (Docket No. 139).
It is SO ORDERED.
_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?