§Why CasetextPricing

K2 Investment Group, LLC, et al., Respondents-Appellants,v.American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, Appellant-Respondent.

Brief

53 Cited authorities

  1. Fitzpatrick v. Am. Honda Co.

    78 N.Y.2d 61 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 470 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "rather than mechanically applying only the 'four corners of the complaint' rule . . . the sounder approach is to require the insurer to provide a defense when it has actual knowledge of facts establishing a reasonable possibility of coverage"

  2. Regal Cons. Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4661 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 196 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the alleged negligence arose on the part of the additional insured rather than the named insured was "of no consequence" as the additional insured's potential liability nonetheless "ar[ose] out of" the named insured's operation, and it was thus entitled to both defense and indemnification

  3. 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"

  4. Schiff Assoc. v. Flack

    51 N.Y.2d 692 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 357 times
    Defining "coverage" as "the net total of policy inclusions minus exclusions"

  5. Maroney v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins.

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 7865 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 167 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying this definition to a coverage exclusion denying claims that "arose out of" uninsured premises

  6. Pavia v. State Farm Ins. Co.

    82 N.Y.2d 445 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 185 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Pavia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 82 N.Y.2d 445, 453-54, 626 N.E.2d 24, 27-28, 605 N.Y.S.2d 208, 211-12 (1993), the court held that a plaintiff in such a case "must establish that the defendant insurer engaged in a pattern of behavior evincing a conscious or knowing indifference to the probability that an insured would he held personally accountable for a large judgment if a settlement offer within the policy limits were not accepted."

  7. In the Matter of Covert

    97 N.Y.2d 68 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 123 times
    Concluding that New York slayer's rule did not prevent proceeds of pension plans and insurance contracts from passing to alternative beneficiaries where insured/participant murdered primary beneficiary, his wife

  8. Gordon v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

    30 N.Y.2d 427 (N.Y. 1972)   Cited 195 times
    Reversing "punitive" award of damages equalling recovery against insured; court below had already reversed award of additional punitive damages

  9. New York & Presbyterian Hosp. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co.

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7149 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 52 times

    2011-10-13 NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, as Assignee of Joaquin Benitez, Respondent, v. COUNTRY–WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. Thomas Torto, New York City, and Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP, for appellant. Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore (Joseph Henig and Gregory Henig of counsel), for respondent. Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK Thomas Torto, New York City, and Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP, for appellant. Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore (Joseph Henig and Gregory Henig of counsel), for respondent

  10. E. Acupuncture v. Allstate

    61 A.D.3d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 55 times
    In East Acupuncture, PC. v Allstate Ins. Co. (61 AD3d 202 [2d Dept 2009]), the Second Department recognized that the no-fault regulations do not specifically define the term "applicant," which generically refers to both the provider/assignee and injured persons in various no-fault sections.