Adams v. Chicago Insurance

Second Circuit

Adams v. Chicago Insurance

111 F. App'x 70

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 20, 2004

DocketNos. 04-0396(L), 04-0554(XAP)

StatusPublished

This text of 111 F. App'x 70 (Adams v. Chicago Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Chicago Insurance, 111 F. App'x 70 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Chicago Insurance Company appeals from a judgment finding it liable to defend and indemnify its insured, Eric R. Adams. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

Because judgment was entered after a bench trial, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. Well-Made Toy Mfg. Corp. v. Goffa Int’l Corp., 354 F.3d 112, 115 (2d Cir.2003). De novo review is required for conclusions of law and mixed questions of law and fact. Id. Having reviewed the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law under the applicable standards, we find no error meriting reversal. We therefore affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Chicago Insurance Company appeals from a judgment finding it liable to defend and indemnify its insured, Eric R. Adams. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

Because judgment was entered after a bench trial, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. Well-Made Toy Mfg. Corp. v. Goffa Int’l Corp., 354 F.3d 112, 115 (2d Cir.2003). De novo review is required for conclusions of law and mixed questions of law and fact. Id. Having reviewed the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law under the applicable standards, we find no error meriting reversal. We therefore affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 F. App'x 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-chicago-insurance-ca2-2004.