Title: Hawaii Providers Network, Inc. v. Ahn

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

~ BVH 302

No. 27682 :

  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'I E&z

HAWAII PROVIDERS NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, q

THE HONORABLE KAREN S. S. AHN, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
‘THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I; AIG HAWAII INSURANCE
COMPANY, INC.; ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.; ALLSTATE INDEMNITY CO.:
AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY; ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY CORP.; BUDGET RENT-A-CAR

SYSTEMS, INC.; DAI-TOKYO ROYAL STATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
LIMITED; FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY OF HAWAII, INC:
FIRST INDEMNITY INSURANCE OF HAWAII, INC.; FIRST INSURANCE

COMPANY OF HAMAII, LTD.; GEICO INDEMNITY CO.; GEICO CASUALTY
CO.; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY; HARTFORD ACCIDENT

‘AND INDENNITY COMPANY; THE HAWATIAN INSURANCE AND GUARANTY
COMPANY, LIMITED; ISLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. 7 LIBERTY
MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. +

NATIONAL SURETY CORP.; PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY:
PROGRESSIVE HAWAII INSURANCE CORP.; PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN

INSURANCE COMPANY; PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY;

PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY: ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY

OF AMERICA; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.; TIG
INSURANCE COMPANY; TIG PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY; TOKIO MARINE

AND FIRE INSURANCE CO., LTD.; TRADEWIND INSURANCE COMPANY:
USRA CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. ;

‘TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO.7
Respondents,

ONY L.

 

 

 

 

 

and

STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; RLI INSURANCE CO.; STAR
INSURANCE CO.; TRADEWINDS U-DRIVE, INC.; and JOHN and JANE DOES
1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, D0E PARTNERSHIPS 1-10 and DOE

ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(crv. NO. 99-4269)

 

DENYING HAWATI PROUT WORK,
Ne
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nekayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon consideration of Petitioner Hawai'i Providers

Network, Inc.’s petition for a writ of mandamus, the papers in

aaa
support, and the records and files herein, it appears Petitioner
fails to demonstrate that it is entitled to a writ of mandamus.
Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY OROERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.

DATE!

 

Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 7, 2006.

Paul Maks
for petitioner on
the weit