'K2-II's' Unsatisfactory Double Reverse

, New York Law Journal

   | 1 Comments

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.

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.