DeLuca v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. State Farm Ins Co v. Trezza

    121 Misc. 2d 997 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1983)   Cited 6 times

    Moreover, a liability policy, such as the homeowner's policy at issue, not only provides "liability" insurance but "litigation" insurance as well. ( International Paper Co. v Continental Cas. Co., 35 N.Y.2d 322, 326, supra; DeLuca v Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 49 A.D.2d 153 [SHAPIRO, J.].) Consequently, the insurer's duty to defend an action against its insured is far broader than its duty to pay under the policy, and "extends to any action, however groundless, false or fraudulent, in which facts are alleged within the coverage afforded by the policy."

  2. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Moulton

    464 So. 2d 507 (Miss. 1985)   Cited 73 times
    Holding that "the term accident refers to [the insured's] action and not whatever unintended damages flowed from that act"

    We recognize that other courts have held that the term accident in a policy such as this refers to unintended consequences of the act such as the infliction of emotional distress. See Deluca v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., 49 A.D.2d 153, 373 N.Y.S.2d 630; however, we are not persuaded by such strained interpretations. Malicious prosecution is an intentional tort and requires proof of the defendant's mental state.

  3. Lutheran Soc. Serv. of Metroplitan v. Guide One

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 30214 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)

    If the complaint in the action at issue contains any cause of action upon which the insured would be entitled to coverage, the insured is entitled to a defense under the policy. ( DeLuca v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., 49 AD2d 153, 159, [2nd dept. 1975]). This is the case even where the complaint asserts some causes of action that are not covered within the policy ( Id).

  4. COUNTY OF MONROE v. TRAV INS

    100 Misc. 2d 417 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979)   Cited 9 times

    Even though the allegations appear groundless, false or fraudulent they must be taken at face value since it is the potential for recovery on protected claims and not the probability which is determinative. (United States Fid. Guar. Co. v Copfer, supra; Rimar v Continental Cas. Co., supra; De Luca v Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 49 A.D.2d 153; Sucrest Corp. v Fisher Governor Co., 83 Misc.2d 394.) Furthermore, "`[w]here a complaint * * * contains ambiguous or incomplete allegations and does not state facts sufficient to bring a case within or without the coverage, the general rule is that the insurer is obligated to defend if there is, potentially, a case under the complaint * * * within the coverage of the policy.'"