1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 851 F.Supp.
  5. 851 F.Supp. 277 (1993)
 

ALLENDALE MUT. INS. CO. v. TRIPLE-S TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

No. 1:92:CV:860.

851 F.Supp. 277 (1993)

ALLENDALE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Arkwright Mutual Insurance Company; The Scott Fetzer Company; Affiliated FM Insurance Company, a Stock Insurance Company organized under the laws of Rhode Island; Sanford Corporation, an Illinois corporation; and Newell Company, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, v. TRIPLE-S TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; Triple-S Plastics, Inc.; Sonitrol of Kalamazoo, Inc., a Michigan corporation aka Kalamazoo Security Systems, Inc.; Securitec, Inc., a Michigan corporation, Defendants. TRIPLE-S PLASTICS, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. SONITROL OF KALAMAZOO, INC., also known as Kalamazoo Security Systems, Inc.; Kalamazoo Security Systems, Inc., jointly and severally; Securitec, Inc., a Michigan corporation, jointly and severally, Third-Party Defendants. SONITROL OF KALAMAZOO, INC. aka Kalamazoo Security Systems, Inc., Cross-Claimant, v. SECURITEC, INC., Cross-Defendant.

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan.

September 14, 1993.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Ronald G. Musto, Ronald G. Musto, Law Office, Grand Rapids, MI, Richard Lee Norris, Raymond Lee Faust, Norris, Choplin & Schroeder, Indianapolis, IN, for Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co., The Scott Fetzer Co., Affiliated FM Ins. Co., Sanford Corp., Newell Co.

Peter A. Smit, Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Howlett, Grand Rapids, MI, for Triple-S Technologies, Inc., Triple-S Plastics, Inc.

David S. York, York & Miller, P.C., Kalamazoo, MI, for Sonitrol of Kalamazoo, Inc., aka Kalamazoo Security Systems, Inc.

Carole D. Bos, M.J. Stephen Fox, Gwen E. Buday, Buchanan & Bos, Grand Rapids, MI, for Securitec, Inc.

Robert R. Lennon, Miller, Johnson, Snell & Cummiskey, Kalamazoo, MI, David S. York, York & Miller, P.C., Kalamazoo, MI, for Sonitrol of Kalamazoo, Inc.

OPINION

ENSLEN, District Judge.

The matter before the Court is third-party Securitec, Inc.'s amended motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that if the Court considers evidence presented beyond the pleadings, the motion should be considered one for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. In this case, the parties have presented and the Court has reviewed evidentiary documents beyond the pleadings...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases