§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

62 Cited authorities

  1. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell

    538 U.S. 408 (2003)   Cited 2,668 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an award of $145 million in punitive damages on a $1 million compensatory verdict violated due process

  2. BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore

    517 U.S. 559 (1996)   Cited 2,845 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a $2 million punitive damages award was "grossly excessive" and therefore exceeded the constitutional limit

  3. Cooper Industries v. Leatherman Tool Group

    532 U.S. 424 (2001)   Cited 800 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that constitutionality of jury's punitive damage award is subject to de novo review

  4. Ashland Mgt. v. Janien

    82 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 618 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether trade secret is secret is generally quest on of fact

  5. Continental Cas. v. Rapid-Am

    80 N.Y.2d 640 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 601 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that these terms are to be construed narrowly as barring coverage "only when the insured intended the damages"

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

    98 N.Y.2d 208 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 435 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that indemnity should be allocated pro rata

  7. Frontier Contrs. v. Merchants

    91 N.Y.2d 169 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 343 times   3 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]"

  8. Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. Nat. Fire Ins. Co.; Pitts

    18 Cal.4th 857 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 281 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the temporal limits of the insurer's duty to defend” lies “between tender of the defense and conclusion of the action.”

  9. 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"

  10. Zappone v. Home Ins. Co.

    55 N.Y.2d 131 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 429 times
    Concluding that insurer did not have to disclaim coverage for accident involving automobile that was not the subject of the insurance policies in question