Legal Opinion
Royal Indemnity Co. v. Love
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 27, 1995PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Allan L. Winick, J.
Defendant, Derrick Nash, moves for an order granting summary judgment and directing the plaintiff insurance company to defend and indemnify Vincent Love. Plaintiff, Royal *891Indemnity Company (Royal), commenced a declaratory judgment action asking this court to declare that plaintiff does not have to defend or indemnify Vincent Love under his homeowner’s policy for the underlying personal injury action commenced against Love.
The origins of this action result from a fight occurring on January 29, 1994 at a nightclub, "Club 91,” owned by East End Square, Inc.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Allstate Insurance v. MugaveroNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Public Service Mutual Insurance v. GoldfarbNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Crull v. GlebMissouri Court of Appeals · 1964
- Sheehan v. GorianskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
- Andover Newton Theological School, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lindsey Dostal v. Curtis StrandWisconsin Supreme Court · 2023
- Beckwith v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 2004