Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Plott v. Sentry Insurance

January 26, 2006

KARL PLOTT, PLAINTIFF(S),
v.
SENTRY INSURANCE, A MUTUAL COMPANY, A WISCONSIN CORPORATION, DEFENDANT(S).



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

MINUTE ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Second Set of Written Interrogatories (docket no. 34) is GRANTED as follows. The Defendant shall provide responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of interrogatories 1 and 2 but only for the years 1999, 2000, and 2001, on or before February 27, 2006, since such information is relevant to the issues before this court, in particular, concerning the pending motion for partial summary judgment and such information is discoverable and appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Clementi v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance, Co., 16 P.3d 223 (Colo. 2001), the Court stated in a UIM case that the insurance company had the burden to prove prejudice by the supposed late notice in order to void the UIM coverage (the "notice-prejudice" rule) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this motion since this court finds Defendant's response was substantially justified and under such circumstances an award of expenses would be unjust.

20060126

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.