Legal Opinion
Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance
Superior Court of Delaware
Decided June 17, 1992PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GEBELEIN, Judge.
Certain high level excess insurer defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint filed in this declaratory judgment action on the basis that no justiciable controversy exists between them and plaintiffs. For the reasons set forth below the motions are denied.
Background
On September 8, 1989, plaintiffs Hoechst Celanese Corporation and Celanese Engineering Resins, Inc. (collectively, “HCC”) filed this comprehensive action seeking a declaratory judgment determining its rights and the duties of numerous primary, umbrella and excess general liability insurers with respect to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Zurich Insurance Co. v. Raymark Industries, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1987
- Frozen Food Express v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Schick Inc. v. Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers UnionCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1987
- Zurich Insurance v. Raymark Industries, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1986
- Stabler v. RamsaySupreme Court of Delaware · 1952
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- XL Specialty Insurance v. WMI Liquidating TrustSupreme Court of Delaware · 2014
- Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Lone Star Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- Raytheon Co. v. Continental Casualty Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2000
- Schult v. SchultConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Jenny Craig, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1995
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.