27 Cited authorities

Newcomb v. Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist.
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 8581 (N.Y. 2016) Cited 326 times
In Newcomb, the Court of Appeals endorsed a new rule establishing a shifting burden of proof in demonstrating that a late notice of claim substantially prejudices a public corporation (see 28 N.Y.3d at 467, 45 N.Y.S.3d 895, 68 N.E.3d 714).
Lang v. Hanover Ins. Co.
3 N.Y.3d 350 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 225 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[c]ompliance with these requirements [of Section 3420] is a condition precedent to a direct action against the insurance company"
Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 4439 (N.Y. 2016) Cited 132 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that parties did not share a legal interest in communications about a commercial matter that they intended to be confidential
Allan v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.
99 A.D.3d 828 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) Cited 106 times 1 Legal Analyses
2012-10-17 Reuben ALLAN, respondent, v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., appellant-respondent, 500 Lincoln, LLC, respondent-appellant (and a third-party action). Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, N.Y. (Stuart Miller, Patrick J. Lawless, and Richard E. Lerner of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Barry, McTiernan & Moore, New York, N.Y. (Laurel A. Wedinger of counsel), for respondent-appellant. REINALDO E. RIVERA Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, N.Y. (Stuart
Jonathan Neil Assoc., Inc. v. Jones
33 Cal.4th 917 (Cal. 2004) Cited 121 times
Holding that in disputes between the insured and the insurer over premiums, the cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith is not necessary to protect the insured's interest
Pink v. Rome Youth Hockey Ass'n, Inc.
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 6946 (N.Y. 2016) Cited 33 times
In Pink v. Rome Youth Hockey Ass'n, Inc., 28 N.Y.3d 994, 41 N.Y.S.3d 204, 63 N.E.3d 1148 (2016), the Court of Appeals dealt with a similar issue involving the alleged failure of a defendant hockey association to enforce an internal "Zero Tolerance" policy.
State ex rel. Grupp v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 3229 (N.Y. 2012) Cited 30 times
Finding preemption under ADA and FAAAA of plaintiffs' fraudulent misrepresentation claims premised on alleged practices relating to improper imposition of fuel surcharges by DHL where plaintiffs did not sue for breach of contract but, instead, brought qui tam action under New York False Claims Act
2470 Cadillac Resources, Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.
84 A.D.3d 697 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) Cited 31 times
No. 5216. May 31, 2011. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered July 23, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant DHL Express (USA), Inc.'s motion to dismiss the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action and the prayer for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Einbinder Dunn, LLP, New York (Michael Einbinder of counsel), for 2470 Cadillac Resources, Inc., et al., appellants. Phillips Nizer LLP, New York (Jeremy D. Richardson
Preserver Ins. Co. v. Ryba
10 N.Y.3d 635 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 33 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding § 3420(d) did not apply to general contractor's claims against subcontractor for indemnification and breach of contract, even where indemnification was sought for a personal injury suit by the subcontractor's employee against the general contractor
American Ref-Fuel v. Employers Ins. Co.
265 A.D.2d 49 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000) Cited 28 times
In American Ref-Fuel, the operator of a municipal incinerator brought a coverage action against its insurance carrier for claims brought by a landfill employee.

Michael J. Carlson, Sr.,, Appellant,v.American International Group, Inc., et al., Respondents.

27 Cited authorities

In Newcomb, the Court of Appeals endorsed a new rule establishing a shifting burden of proof in demonstrating that a late notice of claim substantially prejudices a public corporation (see 28 N.Y.3d at 467, 45 N.Y.S.3d 895, 68 N.E.3d 714).

Holding that "[c]ompliance with these requirements [of Section 3420] is a condition precedent to a direct action against the insurance company"

Holding that parties did not share a legal interest in communications about a commercial matter that they intended to be confidential

Holding that in disputes between the insured and the insurer over premiums, the cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith is not necessary to protect the insured's interest

In Pink v. Rome Youth Hockey Ass'n, Inc., 28 N.Y.3d 994, 41 N.Y.S.3d 204, 63 N.E.3d 1148 (2016), the Court of Appeals dealt with a similar issue involving the alleged failure of a defendant hockey association to enforce an internal "Zero Tolerance" policy.

Finding preemption under ADA and FAAAA of plaintiffs' fraudulent misrepresentation claims premised on alleged practices relating to improper imposition of fuel surcharges by DHL where plaintiffs did not sue for breach of contract but, instead, brought qui tam action under New York False Claims Act

Finding § 3420(d) did not apply to general contractor's claims against subcontractor for indemnification and breach of contract, even where indemnification was sought for a personal injury suit by the subcontractor's employee against the general contractor

In American Ref-Fuel, the operator of a municipal incinerator brought a coverage action against its insurance carrier for claims brought by a landfill employee.