The Court of Appeals recently held that a real estate firm’s relationship with a competitor in the transaction at issue was not sufficient to support an unjust enrichment claim. Whether that result was consistent with the court’s precedent or whether the decision imposed a heightened standard to sustain such a claim was disputed between the majority and dissent.
In an insurance dispute arising out of a horrible crane collapse, the court held that if misrepresentations by the primary insured rendered the liability policy void such that the primary insured was not entitled to coverage, the additional insureds similarly would not be entitled to coverage.
This content has been archived.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]
