Mt. McKinley Insurance v. Corning Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mt. McKinley Insurance v. Corning Inc.

77 A.D.3d 453, 908 N.Y.S.2d 572

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 12, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 A.D.3d 453 (Mt. McKinley Insurance v. Corning Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mt. McKinley Insurance v. Corning Inc., 77 A.D.3d 453, 908 N.Y.S.2d 572 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 4, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the cross motion of respondents Century Indemnity Company et al. to compel discovery and denied appellant Corning Incorporated’s assertion of the “common interest” privilege for certain communications with asbestos claimants made in connection with strategy and preparation for bankruptcy plan confirmation hearings, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action seeking a declaratory judgment establishing entitlement to insurance coverage for defense and/or indemnification, the IAS court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the subject documents produced (see Ulico Cas. Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 1 AD3d 223, 224 [2003]). The court properly held that Corning failed to establish that the subject documents were protected by the common interest privilege, as the negotiations indicated that the parties remained in adversarial positions, and that there was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality (see In re Quigley Co, Inc., 2009 Bankr LEXIS 1352, *31 [Bankr SD NY 2009]).

We have considered Corning’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 4, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the cross motion of respondents Century Indemnity Company et al. to compel discovery and denied appellant Corning Incorporated’s assertion of the “common interest” privilege for certain communications with asbestos claimants made in connection with strategy and preparation for bankruptcy plan confirmation hearings, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action seeking a declaratory judgment establishing entitlement to insurance coverage for defense and/or indemnification, the IAS court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the subject documents produced (see Ulico Cas. Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 1 AD3d 223, 224 [2003]). The court properly held that Corning failed to establish that the subject documents were protected by the common interest privilege, as the negotiations indicated that the parties remained in adversarial positions, and that there was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality (see In re Quigley Co, Inc., 2009 Bankr LEXIS 1352, *31 [Bankr SD NY 2009]).

We have considered Corning’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 453, 908 N.Y.S.2d 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mt-mckinley-insurance-v-corning-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack