ALBANY – An insurer was not obligated to provide malpractice coverage to a law firm where the firm knew it could be held liable for the fraudulent activities of a client but did not tell the insurer before purchasing the policy, the Court of Appeals decided yesterday.
Disagreeing with the Appellate Division, First Department, the state’s highest court ruled that two insurers can invoke “prior knowledge” exclusions in excess coverage policies and refuse to indemnify Pepper Hamilton and partner W. Roderick Gagné in a suit for, among other things, professional malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
