Williams v. Viegelahn

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-08"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-refglobal="case:jaynevpeopleofthestateofcoloradono24sc806june3,2025" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Timothy Allen Jayne</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>. <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 24SC806</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 3, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="157" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="157" data-sentence-id="174" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_174" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 23CA1355</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="215" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="215" data-sentence-id="231" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-refglobal="case:hammondvpeopleofthestateofcoloradono25sc186june17,2025" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Garrett M. Hammond</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 25SC186</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 17, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="157" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="157" data-sentence-id="174" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_174" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 23CA294</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="214" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="214" data-sentence-id="230" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header" data-refglobal="case:kolpakovvpeopleofthestateofcoloradono25sc171june16,2025"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Aleksandr Kolpakov</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 25SC171</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 16, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="157" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="157" data-sentence-id="174" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-prop-ids="sentence_174"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 23CA832</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="214" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="214" data-sentence-id="230" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="276" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="276" data-sentence-id="299" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">HOOD</span></span> does not participate.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1733 Doc: 46 Filed: 08/08/2025 Pg: 1 of 14 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1733 J.H., by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Erica Chambers; E.H., by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Erica Chambers; ERICA CHAMBERS, individually, Plaintiff - Appellees, v. HARFORD MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00856-LPA) Argued: March 18, 2025 Decided: August 8, 2025 Before HEYTENS and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and John A. GIBNEY, JR., Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: William A. Bulfer, Asheville, North Carolina, Daniel Thomas Strong, TEAGUE CAMPBELL DENNIS & GORHAM, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Coleman Cowan, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Kaitelyn E. Fudge, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1733 Doc: 46 Filed: 08/08/2025 Pg: 2 of 14 PER CURIAM: Erica Chambers was driving with her two minor children on the highway in North Carolina when they were hit by a truck owned by Big Boss Construction, Inc. After bringing suit against Big Boss and several other parties involved in the accident, Chambers filed a declaratory judgment action to establish that Big Boss’s $2 million commercial excess insurance policy—issued by Harford Mutual Insurance Group, Inc.—provided coverage for the accident. The district court sided with Chambers and concluded that the accident fell within the scope of the policy’s coverage. The district court further determined that Chambers and her children were entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest under the policy. We affirm both rulings. I. Background 1 On October 27, 2018, Erica Chambers and her children were severely injured in an automobile accident as they drove south on North Carolina Highway 49. A truck owned by Big Boss Construction, Inc. crossed the center of the highway and struck Chambers head on. The driver of the truck was unauthorized to operate a motor vehicle, as he lacked a valid driver’s license. The parties agree that at the time of the accident, the driver was an agent of Big Boss acting within the scope of his employment. The driver was on his way 1 In the litigation agreement discussed infra, the parties “agree[d] that all facts and conclusions of law pled in the Second Amended Complaint in the Underlying Litigation are deemed admitted” for the purpose of this declaratory judgment action. J.A. 207. We thus recite the facts as alleged in that complaint. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1733 Doc: 46 Filed: 08/08/2025 Pg: 3 of 14 to complete a job for a different company, NC Champions Construction, Inc., which was using the truck with Big Boss’s permission. Chambers and her children incurred astronomical medical bills as a result of the accident. Chambers spent 34 days in the hospital recovering from broken bones throughout her body. She endured multiple surgeries and remains under medical care for her injuries, some of which are permanent. One of Chambers’s children suffered a head injury and continues to experience memory problems. Her other child suffered a broken leg. In total, the family’s medical bills have exceeded $500,000. Chambers and her children (collectively, Chambers 2) filed suit in North Carolina state court against the driver, Big Boss, and NC Champions. The suit alleged, among other claims, that Big Boss was liable for negligently entrusting its truck to the driver. At the time of the accident, Big Boss carried multiple insurance policies, including a commercial excess umbrella policy (the Excess Policy) issued by Harford Mutual Insurance Group, Inc. The Excess Policy had a liability limit of $2 million. It co

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 20-JUN-2025 07:58 AM Dkt. 63 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I MERVINA KAUKINI MAMO CASH-KAEO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUY K. BARRETT; RONETTE BARRETT, Defendants-Appellants, DUSTIN K. BARRETT; SHEENA ANN BARRETT; RICHARD BARRETT; LEZLEY K. BARRETT aka LEZLEY BRADBURY, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT WAI‘ANAE DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.) Defendants-Appellants Guy K. Barrett and Ronette Barrett (collectively, the Barretts) appeal from the District Court of the First Circuit's (district court)1 May 17, 2022 Judgment for Possession. They raise three points of error, contending that the district court abused its discretion when: 1 The Honorable Darolyn H. Lendio entered the Judgment for Possession. The Honorable Michelle N. Comeau presided over the April 26, 2022 hearing on Plaintiff-Appellee Mervina Kaukini Mamo Cash-Kaeo's (Cash- Kaeo) motion for summary judgment (MSJ).  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (1) "it defaulted [the Barretts] for [their] non[-]appearance [at the MSJ hearing] where the facts show [the Barretts had] defended themselves in this action by retaining counsel" who "made eight court appearances at hearings in defense of [the Barretts]"; (2) "it applied the extreme sanctions methodology" by entering default judgment against the Barretts "for the failure of their counsel to appear at the hearing on [Cash- Kaeo's] [MSJ]"; and (3) "it allowed the hearing on [Cash-Kaeo's] [MSJ] to proceed without first addressing [counsel's] non[- ]appearance at this hearing." Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve the Barretts' appeal as follows. The Barretts contend that the district court entered default judgment against them pursuant to District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 55. The record reflects, however, that the district court entered the May 17, 2022 Judgment for Possession against the Barretts because Cash-Kaeo demonstrated she was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law under DCRCP Rule 56. Pursuant to DCRCP Rule 56(c), a motion for summary judgment may be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Kanahele v. State, 154 Hawaiʻi 190, 201, 549 P.3d 275, 286 (2024). The Barretts point to no evidence in the record indicating a genuine issue of material fact disputing that Cash- Kaeo is the sole surviving lessee of the subject property, and that Cash-Kaeo is therefore entitled to judgment of possession against the Barretts as a matter of law. The Barretts also cite no authority indicating the district court was required to address their counsel's non-appearance at the MSJ hearing before it could grant the MSJ. Even if the district court was required to do so, the Barretts fail to identify any legal theory or issue of fact that could have or would have been presented in opposition to the MSJ to defeat the motion. We therefore conclude the district court did not err in granting the MSJ, and affirm the May 17, 2022 Judgment for Possession. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 20, 2025. On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge Barry L. Sooalo, for Defendants-Appellants. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge Jay T. Suemori, for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge