Legal Opinion · Dissent

E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Lloyd's & Companies

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided February 20, 2001No. Docket Nos. 97-9468(L); 97-9470(CON); 97-9472(CON); 97-9474(CON); 97-9476(CON); 97-9484(XAP); 99-7812(L); 99-7842(CON); 99-7846(CON); 99-7856(CON); 99-7878(CON); 99-7845(XAP)Published

1DissentJacobs, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent (A) from part II. C of the per curiam opinion, which requires coverage for the third-generation claims, and (B) from part II.D, which requires that Excess Insurers pay the policyholder in respect of claims already paid and satisfied by the underlying primary coverages.

A

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Squibb on coverage for claims presented by the grandchildren of women who ingested DES (“third-generation” claimants). The majority affirms on the ground that the third-generation claims stem from injuries caused by or arising out of a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

American Home Products Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Home InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1988
Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
Silinsky v. State-Wide InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968
Dicola v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'n, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.