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.

HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. v. NATIONAL RURAL ELEC. CO.

March 30, 1990

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COMPANY COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, Defendant


John Garrett Penn, United States District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: PENN

JOHN GARRETT PENN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 The plaintiff filed this action on July 3, 1989 to recover for payments it was required to make as the result of insurance policies issued to Pasargad Carpets of Isfahan, Inc. (Pasargad), Policy No. 42 UUCPC 555 and Schmeltzer, Aptaker & Sheppard, P.C. (Schmeltzer), Policy No. 42 UUCZJ 2521. The case came before the Court for a non-jury trial on March 27-29, 1990. This Memorandum constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52.

 I

 1. The Hartford Fire Insurance Company (plaintiff) is an insurance company with its principal place of business in the State of Connecticut.

 2. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (defendant) is a cooperative association organized in the District of Columbia.

 3. Pasargad was a tenant in possession and control of property located at 1800 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. (the "office building") in the District of Columbia.

 5. At all times relevant to this action, the defendant was the owner of the office building and the landlord of Pasargad and Schmeltzer.

 6. The plaintiff issued a fire insurance policy, Policy No. 42 UUCPC 555, to Pasargad and that policy of insurance was in effect on December 20, 1987.

 7. The plaintiff issued a fire insurance policy, Policy No. 42 UUCZJ 2521, to Schmeltzer and that policy of insurance was in effect on December 20, 1987.

 8. On or about December 20, 1987, a fire occurred on the third floor within the portion of the office building occupied and used by and solely under the control of the defendant.

 9. The fire caused extensive damage to the portion of the office building occupied by the defendant and also caused extensive damage to the portions of the office building occupied by Pasargad and Schmeltzer.

 10. Pasargad made a claim against the plaintiff pursuant to the above insurance policy, see Finding No. 6, and the plaintiff subsequently paid Pasargad $ ...


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.