Gladstein & Isaac v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance

82 A.D.3d 468, 918 N.Y.2d 92
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 8, 2011·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The court properly determined that the allegations in the underlying complaint that plaintiffs’ law firm negligently hired and supervised an attorney who purportedly made sexual advances to a client, fall within the type of errors and omissions coverage provided by defendant’s professional liability insurance policy (see Watkins Glen Cent. School Dist. v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 286 AD2d 48 [2001]).

While the allegations may not fall under the policy definition of “Personal Injury,” the court properly determined that they fall within the policy’s definition of “Wrongful Act.” Concur— [469] Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Gladstein & Isaac v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance, 82 A.D.3d 468, 918 N.Y.2d 92 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

82 A.D.3d 468 (Gladstein & Isaac v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related