holding shareholders and noteholders raised related claims where they alleged "virtually identical false statements in reports, press releases, and other public statements" by mostly the same executives during a similar time period
Summary of this case from Great Am. Ins. Co. v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co.No. 98-9251.
JuNE 29, 1999.
Appeal from the S.D.N.Y.
Affirmed.
holding shareholders and noteholders raised related claims where they alleged "virtually identical false statements in reports, press releases, and other public statements" by mostly the same executives during a similar time period
Summary of this case from Great Am. Ins. Co. v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co.finding insurer had no duty to defend due to exclusion provision because facts of current lawsuit arose out of same facts as excluded litigation and nothing in the policy "require[d] that a claim involve precisely the same parties, legal theories, [w]rongful act, or requests for relief" to apply
Summary of this case from RSUI Indem. Co. v. Worldwide Wagering, Inc.finding it "immaterial that the Shareholders' claims also involved a series of additional misrepresentations beyond those connected with the Noteholders' lawsuit because the exclusions apply if the Noteholders' claims were based on any fact underlying the Shareholder litigation"
Summary of this case from Weaver v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co.finding interrelation between negligent misrepresentation and securities fraud claims involving distinct communication mediums-private and public disclosures
Summary of this case from Vozzcom, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Co. of N.Y.affirming district court's decision that the "language of the policy is unambiguous, and that it clearly applies to exclude coverage for losses incurred in connection with" a lawsuit under a prior or pending litigation exclusion and noting that "it is immaterial that the two lawsuits involved different parties and somewhat different legal harms" because the "policy terms clearly focus on the existence of common facts" and also "it is immaterial that the [prior lawsuit's] claims also involved a series of additional misrepresentations beyond those connected with the [later-filed] lawsuit, because the exclusions apply if the ... claims were based on any fact underlying the [prior] litigation"
Summary of this case from Atl. Ins. Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan.rejecting Rule 33 motion where defense counsel failed to investigate
Summary of this case from United States v. Parsenoting that "the purpose behind" claims-made insurance policies and prior litigation exclusions is "to limit [the insurer's] liability to a fixed period of time," and stating that to "permit an insured to recover for claims" that were "based upon, arising out of, directly or indirectly resulting from, in consequence of, or in any way involving" the same facts or circumstances alleged in a pending lawsuit "would be to grant the insured more coverage than he bargained for and paid for, and to require the insurer to provide coverage for risks not assumed"
Summary of this case from U.S. Gymnastics v. Liberty Ins. Underwritersapplying similar exclusionary provision and finding that "it is immaterial that the two lawsuits involved different parties and somewhat different legal harms (negligent misrepresentation vs. securities fraud), because the above-quoted policy terms clearly focus on the existence of common facts. "
Summary of this case from Allied World Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Day Surgery Ltd.excluding racial slurs and comments not known by the plaintiff during the time he allegedly suffered the hostile work environment
Summary of this case from [REDACTED] v. Citizen Watch Co. of Am., Inc.noting that plaintiff "made no attempt to seek discovery of the individual officer's identity"
Summary of this case from Novo v. City of Danburyalleging corrections officer looked at and spoke to plaintiff "in a manner as if to suggest that [plaintiff] was a homosexual," suggested that plaintiff was likely to be raped in prison, and encouraged other prisoners to sexually abuse plaintiff
Summary of this case from Lowery v. City of N.Y.characterizing $2,500 punitive damages award as "small . . . as compared to the award of compensatory damages"
Summary of this case from Stanczyk v. City of N.Y.characterizing $2,500 punitive damages award as “small ... as compared to the award of compensatory damages”
Summary of this case from Stanczyk v. City of N.Y.stating that even under the liberal pleading standards ofLeatherman, simple bald assertions and conclusions of law do not prevent the dismissal of a complaint
Summary of this case from McCray v. City of New YorkIn Weyant v. Okst, 182 F.3d 902 (2d Cir. 1999), a punitive award of $2,500 was upheld for a plaintiff who had been punched in the groin.
Summary of this case from St. John v. CoismanFull title:Zunenshine v. Executive Risk Indem., Inc
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Date published: Jun 29, 1999
RSUI cites a Second Circuit case in which the court found that a wrongful act/prior or pending litigation…
Martinez v. United StatesThe evidence at trial demonstrated, among other things, that the petitioner and his codefendant, Juan…