Hartford Ins. Company v. Holmes Prot. Group

7 Citing briefs

  1. Pegasus Aviation I, Inc., et al., Appellants,v.Varig Logistica S.A., Defendant, MatlinPatterson Global Advisers, LLC, et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed October 13, 2015

    The Appellate Division lifted its definition of "gross negligence" from unrelated contract case law, which defined the concept as "conduct that evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or smacks of intentional wrongdoing." Pegasus Aviation I, 118 A.D.3d at 433 (citing Hartford Ins. Co. v. Holmes Protection Group, 250 A.D.2d 526, 527 (1st Dep't 1998)). Instead, the Appellate Division should have applied the definition found in spoliation case law, like Pension Committee, to the effect that gross negligence means "failure to exercise even that care which a careless person would use.

  2. Baidu, Inc. et al v. Register.com, Inc.

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss.. Document

    Filed April 9, 2010

    In Green, the New York Appellate Division for the First Department held that an alarm company was grossly negligent both in allowing robbers access to plaintiffs’ store by divulging to them the security codes that disengaged the alarm and in failing to respond promptly when the crime was discovered.9 Green, 629 N.Y.S.2d at 13. Register’s actions clearly parallel the “outrageous acts of folly” committed by Holmes Protection in Green. Hartford Ins. Co. v. Holmes Protection Group, 673 N.Y.S.2d 132, 134 (1st Dept. 1998) (citing Green as a clear example of gross negligence). Far from constituting “bald assertions,” these specific factual allegations clearly meet the federal court pleading requirements and lay out a prima facie case of gross negligence against Register.

  3. Baidu, Inc. et al v. Register.com, Inc.

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss.. Document

    Filed March 16, 2010

    ¶¶ 18, 23), are legally inadequate. See Hartford Ins. Co. v. Holmes Protection Group, 250 A.D.2d 526, 528 (1st Dep’t 1998) (“Delayed or inadequate response to an alarm signal, without more, is not gross negligence.”); Consumers Distrib.

  4. In Re: Adelphia Communication Corp.

    MOTION to Dismiss The Parnassos Non-Agent Lenders' Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Their Motion To Strike Count 33 And Dismiss Count 44 Of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Document

    Filed December 21, 2007

    Gross negligence requires acting in a manner that evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or smacks of intentional wrongdoing. See e.g., Hartford Ins. Co. v. Holmes Prot. Group, 673 N.Y.S.2d. 132, 133 (App. Div. 1998). Willful misconduct requires intentionally committing an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a risk known or so obvious and so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow.

  5. In Re: Adelphia Communication Corp.

    MOTION to Dismiss The CCH Non-Agent Lenders' Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Their Motion To Dismiss Counts 5, 6, 7, 8, 33, 41, And 50 Of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Document

    Filed December 21, 2007

    Gross negligence requires acting in a manner that evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or smacks of intentional wrongdoing. See, e.g., Hartford Ins. Co. v. Holmes Prot. Group, 673 N.Y.S.2d 132, 133 (App. Div. 1998). Willful misconduct requires intentionally committing an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a risk known or obvious and so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow.

  6. Pegasus Aviation I, Inc., et al., Appellants,v.Varig Logistica S.A., Defendant, MatlinPatterson Global Advisers, LLC, et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed October 13, 2015

    ..................................................................................... 27 Gass v. Woods, 954 N.Y.S.2d 759 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty. 2012) ................. 38 GenOn Mid-Atlantic LLC v. Stone & Webster, Inc., 282 F.R.D. 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) aff’d, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70750 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2012) ................................................................. 29, 31, 44, 51 Goldstein v. Carnell Assocs., 74 A.D.3d 745 (2d Dep’t 2010) ................... 27 Guerrero v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 270 A.D.2d 179 (1st Dep’t 2000) ............... 69 Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Murley, 703 F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2013) ................... 47 Hamilton v. Miller, 23 N.Y.3d 592 (2014) .................................................. 60 Harding v. Careerbuilder, LLC, 168 Fed App’x 535 (3d Cir. 2006) .......... 47 Harkabi v. SanDisk Corp., 275 F.R.D. 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ..................... 68 Harry Weiss, Inc. v. Moskowitz, 106 A.D.3d 668 (1st Dep’t 2013) ............ 42 v Hartford Ins. Co. v. Holmes Prot. Grp., 250 A.D.2d 526 (1st Dep’t 1998) ........................................................................................ 27 Haskins v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., No. 10-5044, 2012 WL 5183908 (D.N.J. Oct. 18, 2012) .............................................................................. 51 Hawley v. Mphasis Corp., 302 F.R.D. 37, 50-51 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ............. 43 In re Pfizer Inc. Sec. Litig., 288 F.R.D. 297 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .................... 62 In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, No. 03-1570, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155085 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2013) ........................................ 62 In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Sec. Litig., 2009 WL 8588405 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2009) .......................................................................... 52 Jennosa v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 64 A.D.3d 630 (2d Dep’t 2009) .................. 73 Jerista v. Murray, 883 A.2d 350 (N.J. 2005) ............................................... 50 Jones v. Bremen High Sch. Dist. 228, 08 C 3548, 2010 WL

  7. Pegasus Aviation I, Inc., et al., Appellants,v.Varig Logistica S.A., Defendant, MatlinPatterson Global Advisers, LLC, et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed October 13, 2015

    Id. (citing Hartford Ins. Co. v. Holmes Protection Group, 250 A.D.2d 526, 527 (1st Dep’t 1998)). Instead of relying on an inapt definition of “gross negligence” from the contract setting, the Appellate Division should have applied the tort definition from on-point spoliation case law.