Legal Opinion
Gross v. Hanover Insurance
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 21, 1991No. 91 Civ. 0079 (PKL)PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ORDER
LEISURE, District Judge:
This is an action arising out of an insurance claim following the alleged loss of a substantial amount of jewelry. Defendant Hanover Insurance Company has now moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a), to implead as third-party defendants Joseph Rizzo and Anthony Riz-zo. For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion is granted.
*54BACKGROUND1
The facts necessary to decide the instant motion are not complex. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a loss consisting of approximately $217,800 worth of diamonds consigned to one “3-R Jewelers”2…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Dery v. WyerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
- Haddock v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., and Third Party v. United States Lines Company, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- Monarch Industrial Corp. v. American Motorists InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1967
- Old Republic Insurance v. Concast, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1983
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Too, Inc. v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2003
- Hicks v. Long Island RailroadDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1996
- Crews v. County of NassauDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2009
- Ibasis Global, Inc. v. Diamond Phone Card, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2011
- Falcone v. MarineMax, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2009
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.