Richard Pecarovich v. Allstate Insurance Company

Ninth Circuit

Richard Pecarovich v. Allstate Insurance Company

317 F.3d 938, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 873, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 1099, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2184, 2003 WL 174534

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 28, 2003

Docket00-55400

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 317 F.3d 938 (Richard Pecarovich v. Allstate Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard Pecarovich v. Allstate Insurance Company, 317 F.3d 938, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 873, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 1099, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2184, 2003 WL 174534 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Judge Browning votes to deny the Petition for Panel Rehearing and recommends denying the Petition for Rehearing En Banc. Judge Reinhardt votes to deny the *939 Petition for Panel Rehearing and the Petition for Rehearing En Banc. Judge Tail-man votes to grant the Petition for Panel Rehearing and the Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

The Petition for Panel Rehearing and the Petition for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED. Allstate’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

The opinion filed October 31, 2002 is amended. The amendment to the opinion is as follows:

Add the following footnote to the end of the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 13:

11 In its Petition for Rehearing, Allstate argues for the first time that it is precluded from waiving the proof of loss requirement by a guideline in the FEMA Flood Insurance Manual allowing waivers only for claims under $7,500. We do not decide this issue here.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI