LANEGAN v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al, No. 5:2016cv01706 - Document 46 (E.D. Pa. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION/ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT, UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (DOC. NO. 5) IS GRANTED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS, RUTH FREEMAN AND ADVANCE BILLING, LLC (DOC NO. 16) IS GRANTED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF DAIMLER TRUCKS NO RTH AMERICA, LLC AND FREIGHTLINER AFFILIATES RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN (DOC. NO. 25) IS GRANTED; PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL (DOC. NO. 27) IS DENIED; AND PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS MATTER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 2/10/17. 2/13/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREPS AND E-MAILED. (ky, )

Download PDF
LANEGAN v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al Doc. 46 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM KEITH LANEGAN, individually and/or in his capacity as ADMINISTRATOR and/or EXECUTOR of the ESTATE OF ROGER RAY LANEGAN, CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1706 Plaintiff, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a/k/a UNUM GROUP, a/k/a UNUM PROVIDENT, et al, Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this 10th day of February, 2017, upon review of the Motions to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendants, Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Ruth Freeman and Advance Billing, LLC, and Daimler Trucks North America, LLC and Freightliner Affiliates Retirement Savings Plan (Docket Nos. 5, 16 and 25), memoranda of law in support, Plaintiff’s opposition thereto, Defendants’ replies, and after oral argument on said motions, and supplemental briefing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant, Unum Life Insurance Company (Docket No. 5), is GRANTED; 2. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants, Ruth Freeman and Advance Billing, LLC (Docket No. 16), is GRANTED; 3. The Motion to Dismiss of Daimler Trucks North America, LLC and Freightliner Affiliates Retirement Savings Plan (Docket No. 25), is GRANTED; Dockets.Justia.com 4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Docket No. 27) is DENIED as moot; 5. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice; and 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl Jeffrey L. Schmehl, J. 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.