Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Leaderboard Analytics
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Capitol Body Shop, Inc. et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al
Case Number:
6:14-cv-06000
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
- Adams & Reese
- Alston & Bird
- Baker Donelson
- Butler Snow LLP
- Carlton Fields
- Carpenter Lipps
- Copeland Cook
- Currie Johnson
- Dentons
- Eaves Law Firm
- Eimer Stahl
- Eversheds Sutherland
- Holcomb Dunbar
- Husch Blackwell
- King & Spalding
Companies
- Direct General Corp.
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
- Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.
- Safeco Insurance Co.
- Shelter Mutual Insurance Co.
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
- The Allstate Corp.
- United Services Automobile Association
Sectors & Industries:
-
August 10, 2016
Geico Fights To Keep Sanctions In Body Shop Antitrust Suit
Geico on Tuesday urged a Florida federal court to reject an attempt by an auto body shop and its counsel to escape paying the insurer's legal fees for defending against claims in an antitrust case that had already been resolved, arguing there is no reason to reconsider the order.
-
July 19, 2016
Geico Nets Sanctions From Firm, Body Shop In Antitrust Row
A Florida federal judge on Tuesday granted a sanctions request by Geico against an auto repair shop and its law firm, holding that they filed claims in an antitrust case that had already been resolved in a related suit against the insurance company.