5:24-cv-05094•United Financial Casualty Company v. Kansas E3, LLC et al
Full text
Case 5:24-cv-05094-TLB Document 45 Filed 04/02/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
Case 5:24-cv-05094-TLB Document 45 Filed 04/02/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative
Case 5:24-cv-05094-TLB Document45 ~~ Filed 04/02/25 Page 1 of 2 PagelD #: <pagelD> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 5:24-CV-5094 KANSAS E3, LLC; RED LINE CONTRACTORS, LLC; FIDEL RUA; JASON FLYNN; and AMANDA FLYNN DEFENDANTS ORDER Now before the Court are Plaintiff United Financial Casualty Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34), Statement of Facts (Doc. 35), and Brief in Support (Doc. 36); Separate Defendants Kansas E3, Red Line Contractors, LLC, and Fidel Rua’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 39), Response to Statement of Facts (Doc. 40), and Brief in Support (Doc. 41); and Plaintiff's Reply (Doc. 44). The Court is aware that on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the burden of proving the absence of any material factual disputes and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586- 87 (1986). The Court must view the facts and any logical inferences that may be drawn from those facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Canada v. Union Elec. Co., 135 F.3d 1211, 1212-13 (8th Cir. 1997). A review of the parties’ briefing and attached exhibits persuades the Court that summary judgment is inappropriate. There remain genuine, material disputes of fact as to which of two vehicles—one insured and the other uninsured—was involved in an accident. The insurance coverage dispute at the heart of this declaratory judgment action Case 5:24-cv-05094-TLB Document 45 ~ Filed 04/02/25 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #: <pagelD> turns on the identification of the vehicle, which the witnesses dispute. This matter must therefore be tried to a jury. IT IS ORDERED that the Motion a Summary Judgment (Doc. 34) is DENIED. A IT IS SO ORDERED on this a day of April, 2025. STRICT JUDGE
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.