alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
461 P.2d 155

#### OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAMY COLUMBUS CLUB, a corporation, and Patricia Mengrone, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 8828.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Nov. 10, 1969.

Thomas E. Jones, Albuquerque, for Lamy Columbus Club.

Quincy D. Adams, Albuquerque, for Patricia Mengrone.

LeRoi Farlow, Albuquerque, for appellee.

OPINION

COMPTON, Justice.

The appellant, Patricia Mengrone, brought an action against the appellant, Lamy Columbus Club, for damages for injuries sustained by her when a chair furnished her by the Club for the playing of bingo collapsed. The accident occurred in February, 1966, and the Club, disclaiming any knowledge of the accident and injury, did not give written notice to appellee of the accident and injury until some time in November, 1967, after it had been sued by Patricia Mengrone. Thereupon, appellee instituted this action for a declaratory judgment under the terms of a liability insurance policy theretofore issued by it to the Club. Issue was joined; the Club sought additional relief by counterclaim and cross-claim against appellee.

Upon consideration of the pleadings, affidavits and various depositions, the trial court sustained the appellee’s motion for summary judgment, and this appeal followed. The court did not state specifically the basis of its judgment but we think it is clear that summary judgment was based on the failure of Lamy Columbus Club to give timely written notice of the accident and injury sustained by the appellant Mengrone. The policy requires that:

> *“9.*Notice of Accident: When an accident occurs written notice shall be given by or on behalf of the insured to the company or any of its authorized agents as soon as practicable. Such notice shall contain particulars sufficient to identify the insured and also reasonably obtainable information respecting the time, place arid circumstances of the accident, the names and addresses of the injured and of available witnesses.”

Viewing the same record as did the trial court, we conclude that there still exist material issues of fact whether the Club had knowledge of the accident, and, if so, whether the injury sustained by the appellant Mengrone was of such a nature that delay by the Club in giving written *741notice of the accident to the insurer was excused. These issues cannot be deterl mined as a matter of law. Compare Simon v. Wilson, 78 N.M. 491, 432 P.2d 847; Watson v. Western Casualty and Surety Company, 72 N.M. 250, 382 P.2d 723; Agnew v. Libby, 53 N.M. 56, 201 P.2d 775. In Watson v. Western Casualty and Surety Company, supra, we said:

> “The absence of an apparent injury is sufficient excuse for delay in giving notice to the insurer, where there is no reasonable ground for believing at the time that bodily injury would result from the accident, even where the insured knows of the accident upon which a later claim for damages is based. * * ”

The judgment is reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to reinstate the case on the trial docket for trial on its merits.

It is so ordered.

WATSON, J., and MUSGROVE, D. J., concur.
#### Anna P. Greene, Respondent, v. East Side Omnibus Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ. [See *post,*p. 903.]
#### Elektra Toy and Novelty Company, Appellant, v. Jennie S. Simon and Another, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### §4523. Deductions for delinquent indebtedness

Whenever a Representative, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or a United States Senator, shall fail to pay any sum or sums due from such person to the House of Representatives or Senate, respectively, the appropriate committee or officer of the House of Representatives or Senate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction of the activity under which such debt arose, shall certify such delinquent sum or sums to the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives in the case of an indebtedness to the House of Representatives and to the Secretary of the Senate in the case of an indebtedness to the Senate, and such latter officials are authorized and directed, respectively, to deduct from any salary, mileage, or expense money due to any such delinquent such certified amounts or so much thereof as the balance or balances due such delinquent may cover. Sums so deducted by the Secretary of the Senate shall be disposed of by him in accordance with existing law, and sums so deducted by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives shall be disposed of by him in accordance with existing law.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 648, title I, §1, 48 Stat. 1024; Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §203(8), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1726.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 40a of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–186 substituted "Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives in" for "Sergeant at Arms of the House in" and "Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives shall be" for "Sergeant at Arms of the House shall be paid to the Clerk of the House and".
**Exhibit 13.2.**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Thilo Kusch,certify that the Form 20-F fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: February 22, 2007 |   |                    |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                    |   |                    |
|                    | By:    | /s/ Thilo Kusch         |
|                    | Name:  | Thilo Kusch             |
|                    | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |

 

                

----
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov 

No. III-03-042 June 4, 2003

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC TO DISCUSS SIGNIFICANCE OF SAFETY SYSTEM ISSUE AT POINT BEACH

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet Friday, June 6, in Lisle, Illinois, with

representatives of Nuclear Management Company to discuss the safety significance of a potential

failure in an auxiliary cooling system at the Point Beach Nuclear Power Station. The two-reactor

facility is located near Two Rivers, Wisconsin. 

The NRC staff has completed a preliminary assessment of the problem and concluded that it is

of "high safety significance." The meeting, called a Regulatory Conference, will seek the utility’s

evaluation of its significance. The NRC’s preliminary assessment was previously announced in News

Release III-03-28, issued April 4.

The meeting will be held at 9 a.m. (CDT) in the NRC’s Region III Office, 801 Warrenville

Road, Lisle. Visitors should report first to the Second Floor reception area. The meeting is open to

public observation; before the meeting is adjourned, members of the public may ask questions and

provide comments.

NRC inspectors determined that the auxiliary cooling water system might fail to function under

certain abnormal conditions. Normal plant operations were not affected by the problem, which was

initially discovered by plant personnel in October of last year. 

The auxiliary feedwater system is used to safely shut down the reactor if problems occur during

plant operations and to continue removing heat from the reactor after shutdown.

The utility took prompt corrective actions to revise procedures and train reactor operators to

address the immediate safety concerns. The auxiliary feedwater system was subsequently modified to

further correct the problem.

NRC inspection findings are evaluated using a four-level scale of safety significance, ranging

from "green" for a finding of minor significance, through "white" and "yellow" to "red," for a finding

of high safety significance.

The NRC’s preliminary evaluation determined the Point Beach cooling system problem to be a

"red" finding. Information presented by the utility in the Regulatory Conference will be used by the

NRC staff, along with its inspection findings, to determine the final safety significance of the problem.
The final determination of the safety significance will be posted on the NRC’s web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/current.html#reactor

"Red" inspection findings can lead to additional NRC inspections and other regulatory actions

to further evaluate plant performance and respond to any additional deficiencies identified.

The details of the NRC inspection findings are discussed in Inspection Report 2002-15 which is

available online in the NRC’s electronic reading room. This report -- with the accession number

ML030920128 -- may be viewed in the NRC’s ADAMS document system, accessible at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

# # #
§ 1216.101 Scope and purpose. ( a ) This part establishes policy, assigns responsibilities and prescribes procedures with respect to: ( 1 ) The production or disclosure of official information or records by MSPB employees, advisors, and consultants; and
( 2 ) The testimony of current and former MSPB employees, advisors, and consultants relating to official information, official duties, or the MSPB's record, in connection with federal or state litigation in which the MSPB is not a party.
( b ) The MSPB intends this part to: ( 1 ) Conserve the time of MSPB employees for conducting official business;
( 2 ) Minimize the involvement of MSPB employees in issues unrelated to MSPB's mission;
( 3 ) Maintain the impartiality of MSPB employees in disputes between private litigants; and
( 4 ) Protect sensitive, confidential information and the deliberative processes of the MSPB.
( c ) In providing for these requirements, the MSPB does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.
( d ) This part provides guidance for the internal operations of MSPB. It does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, that a party may rely upon in any legal proceeding against the United States.