Legal Opinion

Federal Insurance v. Tyco International Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 18, 2008Published

1Opinion of the Court

Outside director Walsh’s violation of the Martin Act did not bar his recovery of defense costs under the Federal Insurance directors and officers liability insurance obtained by Tyco. Strictly construing the policy exclusions (see Belt Painting Corp. v TIG Ins. Co., 100 NY2d 377, 383 [2003]) and according meaning to each of their terms (see Beal Sav. Bank v Sommer, 8 NY3d 318, 324 [2007]), the motion court correctly interpreted the exclusions of claims “based on, arising from, or in consequence of’ a wrongful act, rather than the language of “interrelated” and explicitly “causally connected”…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Beal Savings Bank v. SommerNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
  2. Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 2003
  3. Agricultural Insurance v. MatthewsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API