40 Cited authorities

  1. Continental Cas. v. Rapid-Am

    80 N.Y.2d 640 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 525 times
    Holding that these terms are to be construed narrowly as barring coverage "only when the insured intended the damages"
  2. D'Arata v. N Y Cent. Fire Ins. Co.

    76 N.Y.2d 659 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 547 times
    Holding that collateral estoppel is grounded on concepts of fairness and should not be rigidly or mechanically applied
  3. QSP, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

    256 Conn. 343 (Conn. 2001)   Cited 358 times
    Holding that in an action for malicious prosecution it is necessary for a plaintiff to prove want of probable cause
  4. Allianz Ins. Co. v. Lerner

    416 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 303 times
    Concluding that, where the new arguments were available to the party below, "the circumstances . . . do not militate in favor of an exercise of discretion"
  5. Frontier Contrs. v. Merchants

    91 N.Y.2d 169 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 273 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a duty to defend where "Defendants have failed to establish that all of the underlying bodily injury claims satisfy the time and place prerequisites of the [exclusion]"
  6. Lang v. Hanover Ins. Co.

    3 N.Y.3d 350 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 182 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that New York Insurance Law § 3420 allows an injured party to bring a claim directly against an insurer rather than a tortfeasor "only under limited circumstances—[specifically,] the injured party must first obtain a judgment against the tortfeasor, serve the insurance company with a copy of the judgment and await payment for 30 days"
  7. Servidone Constr. v. Security

    64 N.Y.2d 419 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 299 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in New York “an insurer's breach of duty to defend does not create coverage and ... even in cases of negotiated settlements, there can be no duty to indemnify unless there is first a covered loss”
  8. Schiff Assoc. v. Flack

    51 N.Y.2d 692 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 328 times
    In Albert J. Schiff Assocs., the court made a distinction between policy conditions, which could be waived by the insurer's conduct, and the parameters of the underlying coverage.
  9. Equal Employment Opp. Comm. v. Staten Is. S.B

    207 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 137 times
    Holding that Title I of ADA does not bar entities from offering different benefits for mental disabilities than for physical ones
  10. Sentinel Ins. Co. v. First Ins. Co.

    76 Haw. 277 (Haw. 1994)   Cited 156 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that duty to defend arises when there is any potential or possibility for coverage