Carlos Martell v. IDS Property Casualty Ins., No. 12-1603 (6th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0508n.06 Nos. 12-1603/1706 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT CAMILLE GLYNN; CARLOS MARTELL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, and AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INCORPORATED, et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED May 21, 2013 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Defendant. BEFORE: SILER, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Camille Glynn and Carlos Martell, Michigan citizens, appeal and defendant IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co. ( IDS ) cross-appeals from the final judgment in an insurance contract dispute. On June 14, 2010, a suspicious fire destroyed plaintiffs home. They had an insurance policy with IDS, and made a claim for their loss, but IDS denied the claim. Plaintiffs brought this action to compel payment of the claim and moved for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion, finding that there were disputed issues of fact that should be resolved at trial. The case Nos. 12-1603/1706 Martell, et al. v. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins., et al. proceeded to a jury trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of IDS. Plaintiffs did not move for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but they did file an appeal. IDS filed a crossappeal. Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment. IDS, upon realizing that plaintiffs were not appealing the jury verdict, stated that it was withdrawing its cross-appeal. We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion for summary judgment following a jury verdict adverse to the movant after a full trial on the merits. Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S. Ct. 884, 889 (2011); Jarrett v. Epperly, 896 F.2d 1013, 1016 (6th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, both appeals are hereby dismissed. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.