'K2-II's' Unsatisfactory Double Reverse

, New York Law Journal


Michael S. Gollub, a member of Marshall, Conway & Bradley, and Steven M. Ziolkowski, an associate at the firm, write that although the Court of Appeals admitted it dropped the ball in K2-I when it reversed itself in K2-II, it missed an opportunity to expound on the relationship between the pleadings and underlying judgment on the one hand, and the duty to indemnify on the other hand.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Matthew Siegel

    I agree that the court in K2-II stinted at its chore in explaining how Daniels‘ possible financial duplicity in having served two masters -- K2, his client, and Goldan, his business, could otherwise serve as an independent basis upon which American Guarantee could potentially disclaim coverage based on its "Insured‘s Status" and/or "Business Enterprise" exclusions in the face of the negligence liability determination underlying the legal malpractice default judgment already rendered against Daniels.

    Matthew Siegel

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202649879234

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.