Legal Opinion
Continental Casualty Co. v. Pullman, Comley, Bradley & Reeves
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided April 2, 1991No. 819, Docket 90-7722PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff, the Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”), appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Nevas, Judge), granting the defendant law firm of Pullman, Comley, Bradley & Reeves (“Pullman”) judgment on the pleadings. The district court held that: (1) Continental was not the foreseeable or intended beneficiary of Pullman’s legal services in the underlying personal injury litigation; and (2) Continental could not sue Pullman for malpractice under the doctrine of equitable subro-gation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c).…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Keating v. CareyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- Mather v. Griffin HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Mozzochi v. BeckSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- O'Connor v. O'ConnorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- American Centennial Insurance Co. v. Canal Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1992
- Miner v. Town of CheshireDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2000
- Hartford Casualty Insurance v. New Hampshire InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
- Robins v. Max Mara, U.S.A., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- In Re State Police LitigationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1995
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.