Joshua L. Blosveren, left, and Bradley J. Nash, right, of Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney. Courtesy photos Introduction
In an insurance coverage action currently pending in New York state court styled Century Indemnity v. The Archdiocese of N.Y., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 34420 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023), the trial court granted the policyholders' motion to dismiss, holding, in part, that the Chubb insurers improperly had attempted to shift the burden of proof as to whether the policyholders "expected or intended" the sexual abuse alleged in more than 1,000 underlying Child Victims Act suits to the policyholder. Earlier this year, the Appellate Division, First Department largely reinstated Chubb's complaint without addressing the "expected or intended" defense. Century Indemnity v. The Archdiocese of New York, 226 A.D.3d 557 (1st Dep't 2024).Don't Allow Insurers to Weaken the Standard Applicable to the 'Expected or Intended' Coverage Defense
"In determining whether an organization's potential liability for an employee's sexual misconduct is covered, the relevant question is whether the harm was expected or intended from the organization's standpoint," write Joshua L. Blosveren and Bradley J. Nash.
July 26, 2024 at 10:00 AM
11 minute read
Insurance Law
Joshua L. Blosveren, left, and Bradley J. Nash, right, of Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney. Courtesy photos
Introduction
In an insurance coverage action currently pending in New York state court styled Century Indemnity v. The Archdiocese of N.Y., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 34420 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023), the trial court granted the policyholders' motion to dismiss, holding, in part, that the Chubb insurers improperly had attempted to shift the burden of proof as to whether the policyholders "expected or intended" the sexual abuse alleged in more than 1,000 underlying Child Victims Act suits to the policyholder. Earlier this year, the Appellate Division, First Department largely reinstated Chubb's complaint without addressing the "expected or intended" defense. Century Indemnity v. The Archdiocese of New York, 226 A.D.3d 557 (1st Dep't 2024).
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
No-Fault Insurance Law Wrap-Up: Recent Decisions Concerning New York's MVAIC Coverage
9 minute read
Holland & Knight Snags 2 Insurance Partners in New York and Philadelphia From Goodwin
3 minute read
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1NY District Attorneys Are Still No Fans of Revamped Misconduct Watchdog
- 2ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Over Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
- 3Attorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
- 4Attracted to Thompson Hine's Fee Flexibility, Morgan Lewis Litigator Switches Firms in Chicago
- 5Phila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
