Legal Opinion

Pierce Associates, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided June 14, 2006No. Civil Action 04-1906 (JDB)Published

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

BATES, District Judge.

Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. (“St.Paul”) requests reconsideration of the Court’s March 13, 2006, decision entering partial summary judgment for plaintiff Pierce Associates, Inc. (“Pierce”) on the issue of St. Paul’s liability for breach of the duty to defend Pierce under the terms of a commercial general liability policy. See Pierce Assocs., Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 421 F.Supp.2d 11, 13 (2006). In reaching that decision, the Court interpreted the language of the policy’s defense…

2Cases cited9 opinions

Schering Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Home Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
Fitzpatrick v. American Honda Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
State v. Home Indemnity Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1985
Alexander & Alexander Services, Inc. v. These Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, LondonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1974

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