Legal Opinion
Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance v. Hahn
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided December 9, 2004No. CIV.A. 04-0640(JDB)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BATES, District Judge.
This is an action by plaintiff Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company (“MLM”) seeking a declaration of rights relating to its rescission of a professional liability insurance policy issued to the defendant law firm of Amram & Hahn (“A & H”) on September 3, 2003. 1 MLM has moved for summary judgment on the ground that rescission was proper because the undisputed facts and law establish that A & H knowingly failed to notify MLM, prior to issuance of the policy, of a letter constituting notice of a claim or circumstances that could reasonably result in…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Stipcich v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Cecil B. Jacobson, Jr. Reproductive Genetics Center, LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1995
- Commercial Underwriters Insurance v. Hunt & Calderone, P.C.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2001
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Chicago Insurance Company v. Paulson & Nace, PllcDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Ross v. Continental Casualty Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 2009