§Why CasetextPricing

Keyspan Gas East Corporation, Appellant,v.Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., Defendant, Century Indemnity Company et al., Respondents.

Brief

28 Cited authorities

  1. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn

    554 U.S. 105 (2008)   Cited 3,094 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this sort of "dual role" conflict did not permit "a change in the standard of review, say, from deferential to de novo review," but instead was simply to be weighed as a factor in the abuse-of-discretion analysis

  2. Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila

    542 U.S. 200 (2004)   Cited 2,699 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding that states cannot create new causes of action that conflict with ERISA's " ‘interlocking, interrelated, and interdependent remedial scheme,’ " located in § 502 of ERISA

  3. Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.

    560 U.S. 242 (2010)   Cited 1,323 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party need not "prevail[]" to obtain a fee award under § 1132(g); instead, a court has discretion to grant such an award as long as the party "has achieved some degree of success on the merits"

  4. Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.

    571 U.S. 99 (2013)   Cited 459 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a participant in an employee benefit plan covered by ERISA may agree by contract to a particular limitations period, even one that starts to run before the cause of action accrues, as long as the period is reasonable and distinguishing Occidental based on the evidence in Occidental that there were obstacles to bringing a timely claim within the limitations period

  5. U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen

    569 U.S. 88 (2013)   Cited 339 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding equitable principles cannot override clear plan terms

  6. Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran

    536 U.S. 355 (2002)   Cited 332 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that savings clause allowed Illinois to enforce law requiring independent medical review of certain denials of medical benefits

  7. Vandenberg v. Superior Court

    21 Cal.4th 815 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 480 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "incorrect" to "distinguish contract from tort liability for purposes of the CGL insurance coverage phrase `legally obligated to pay as damages'"

  8. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    98 N.Y.2d 208 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 436 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that indemnity should be allocated pro rata

  9. American States Ins. Co. v. Koloms

    177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997)   Cited 317 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that pollution exclusion clause did not extend beyond the traditional environmental arena

  10. Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Asbestos Claims Mgmt

    73 F.3d 1178 (2d Cir. 1995)   Cited 212 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that New York law did not bar coverage of damages even though the insured knew, before the inception date of its policies, "that its products risked asbestosis and cancer diseases and had received a large number of claims"

  11. Section 500.23 - Amicus curiae relief

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.23   Cited 3 times

    Any non-party other than the Attorney General seeking to file an amicus brief on an appeal, certified question or motion for leave to appeal must obtain permission by motion. Potential amici seeking information are encouraged to contact the clerk's office by telephone during business hours. Information on the calendar status of appeals and certified questions, court session dates and appropriate return dates for amicus motions also is available on the court's website. (a)Motions for amicus curiae