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.

Evans v. Johnson

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

April 16, 2019

ANTHONY EVANS, Plaintiff,
v.
RYLIE ELIZABETH JOHNSON, Defendant.

         WE CONSENT:

          Pamela R. Mullis, Mullis Law Firm Attorney for Plaintiff Anthony Evans.

          Elizabeth A. Martineau, Lee M. Thomas Martineau King PLLC, Attorneys for Unnamed UIM Defendant Erie Insurance Exchange.

          Stephen L. Brown Russell G. Hines, Young Clement Rivers, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Rylie Elizabeth Johnson.

          Kelli L. Sullivan, Clawson and Staubes, LLC, Attorney for Unnamed UIM Defendant Allstate Insurance Company.

          CONSENT ORDER STAYING ACTION

          R. Bryan Harwell, United States District Judge.

         BEFORE THE COURT is a Consent Motion to Stay Action.

         By and through their respective counsel undersigned, all of the parties to this action, namely, Plaintiff, Anthony Evans; Defendant, Rylie Elizabeth Johnson; and the Unnamed UIM Defendants, Erie Insurance Exchange and Allstate Insurance Company (collectively, the “Parties”), represent to the Court as follows in support of the subject motion:

         1. This is a personal injury lawsuit arising out of an automobile accident.

         2. Plaintiff and Defendant have reached an agreement to settle the matter on a covenant not to execute.

         3. As more fully set forth in the written covenant, [1] in consideration of the payment, to Plaintiff, on Defendant's behalf, by Defendant's automobile liability insurer, American Family Mutual Insurance Company (“AFMIC”), of the full amount of the per-person bodily injury liability coverage limit on the auto insurance policy AFMIC issued covering the vehicle Defendant was driving at the time of the underlying auto accident (the “Subject AFMIC Policy”), Defendant is protected from personal liability exposure relating to the underlying auto accident, but Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are not released, and Plaintiff may continue to prosecute the instant personal injury suit and, although Plaintiff may not seek enforcement against Defendant personally, Plaintiff may seek payment of any judgment he may obtain in the instant personal injury suit against/under any other applicable insurance coverage, i.e., against/under other insurance coverage besides the coverage provided by the Subject AFMIC Policy.

         4. In another court, there is a pending declaratory judgment action about whether certain disputed underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage exists/applies with respect to the underlying auto accident (the “UIM DJ”).

         5. Whether Plaintiff will continue to prosecute the instant personal injury suit will depend on the outcome of the UIM DJ.

         6. The Parties agree that is in the interests of justice and judicial economy, and that it will work no undue prejudice upon any Party, for the instant personal injury ...


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.