Legal Opinion
Steadfast Insurance v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 27, 2003No. 02 Civ. 8786(SAS)PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Steadfast Insurance Company (“Steadfast”) seeks a declaration that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify its insured, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP (“Stroock”), for its losses in connection with a now settled California bankruptcy adversary proceeding (“Bankruptcy Proceeding”).
Steadfast moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(c). Stroock cross-moves for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 declaring that Steadfast is obligated to defend and indemnify it. For the reasons…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination UnitSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Seaboard Surety Co. v. Gillette Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Continental Casualty Co. v. Rapid-American Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Sellers v. M.C. Floor Crafters, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
- Albert J. Schiff Associates, Inc. v. FlackNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Globecon Group, LLC v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Docket No. 04-4399-CvCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- BP America, Inc. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2005
- American Home Assurance Co. v. PopeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
- Gelfman v. Capitol Indemnity Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 2014
- First Roumanian American Congregation v. Guideone Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.