McGuire was allegedly instructed to obtain sufficient insurance to "ensure. Plaintiffs contend that for many years they relied on McGuire to select "an appropriate amount" of insurance. Plaintiffs purchased their insurance through a local insurance broker, McGuire Insurance Agency, Inc. The computer component that allegedly started the fire was manufactured by Dell, Inc.Īfter the fire, Plaintiffs filed an insurance claim with their carrier, Nationwide. Plaintiffs maintain that Frost advised them to leave the system on continuously, even when they were not in the shop. Plaintiffs contend that the fire began because a computer component within the machine overheated and caught fire after they followed the operating instructions of Dare Frost, a PPG employee. The Paint Manager Touch Mix System was manufactured and marketed by PPG Industries, Inc. Plaintiffs believe that the fire originated in a machine at the shop called the Paint Manager Touch Mix System.
A fire badly damaged and/or destroyed the property on November 28, 2010. Roger and Kimberly Jones own and operate Jones Body Shop Inc., an automobile repair and body shop, in Knott County, Kentucky.
For the following reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is GRANTED. This matter is before the Court on various motions including Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. Although Defendants' arguments did not carry the day, this is far from the case where an award of attorney fees is appropriate. Although Defendants did not prevail on their fraudulent joinder and misjoinder arguments, those arguments were not "objectively unreasonable." Fraudulent joinder and misjoinder are the law of this Circuit, and PPG has reasonably applied the law to the facts of this case. To award fees, the Court must find that Defendants "lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal." Martin v. § 1447(c) "as a consequence of an improper removal.". Plaintiffs ask the Court to award reasonable attorney fees and costs under 28 U.S.C.Therefore, the Court need not decide whether Plaintiffs could make out a fraud or intentional misrepresentation claim. As discussed above, Plaintiffs have alleged facts that arguably provide a reasonable basis for predicting that Kentucky law might impose liability for negligence. First, PPG argues that Plaintiffs' claim "against Dare Frost, in truth, constitutes a claim of fraud and/or intentional misrepresentation" because "nder Kentucky law, the Court must look beyond the mere labels that Plaintiffs provide and look to the facts which have been pled to determine what claims are being made.". PPG has failed to meet the heavy burden of proving that there is not even arguably a reasonable basis for predicting Kentucky law might impose liability on Frost.
0 kommentar(er)
