green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.9 score
“e are convinced that the good-faith settlement standard controls in new york in cases of an assured's personal liability resulting from the insurer's failure to settle within policy limits.”
Treatment trajectory · 1963 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1963
1994
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company v. Consigli & Associates, LLC
e are convinced that the good-faith settlement standard controls in new york in cases of an assured's personal liability resulting from the insurer's failure to settle within policy limits.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stinson v. Union Mutual Fire Ins. Co.
Under Myers, “[t]he question of whether an insurer acts in bad faith depends on the specific facts of each case, and is one for the trier”. 146 Vt. at 577 (citing Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 314 F.2d 675, 680 (2d Cir. 1963)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McMahon v. Medical Protective Co.
Co., 314 F.2d 675, 679 (2d Cir.1963) (“Other facts which have recurrently contributed to findings of bad faith on the part of the insurance company are [among other things] ... attempts by the company to induce the assured to contribute to a settlement within the policy limits.... ”); 1 DENNIS J.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McReynolds v. American Commerce Insurance
(2×)
Co., 314 F.2d 675, 676-78, 681-82 (2d Cir.1963) (four claimants, two with demands in excess of policy limits; no prompt policy-limits interpleader occurred or was discussed); Peckham v. Cont’l Cas.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Under New York law, this implied covenant requires insurance companies to negotiate settlements in good faith and to give the interests of their insureds “at least equal consideration in evaluating the propriety of a settlement.” Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 314 F.2d 675, 678 (2d Cir.1963); see also Young, 416 F.2d at 910 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sobus v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company
Negligence, however, if “serious and recurrent * * * may be indicative of bad faith.” See Brown v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 314 F.2d 675, 680 (2d Cir. 1963).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Juanita Peterson, Individually and as Assignee of Nathaniel Washington v. Allcity Insurance Company
(4×)
Co., 314 F.2d 675, 680 (2d Cir. 1963).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yeomans v. All State Ins. Co.
Further, even were the above listed factors viewed as being evidential only a certain negligence on All State's part, "Although negligence alone is insufficient to render the insurer liable, serious and recurrent negligence may be indicative of bad faith." Brown v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 314 F. 2d 675, 679 (2 Cir.1963).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Young v. American Casualty Company Of Reading, Pennsylvania
Liability 9 Under New York law, which concededly governs here in this diversity action, it is well settled that the insurance company is under a duty to negotiate a settlement in good faith and that the interests of the insured must be given 'at least equal consideration in evaluating the propriety of a settlement.' Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 314 F.2d 675, at 678 (2 Cir. 1963).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Young v. American Casualty Co.
Liability Under New York law, which concededly governs here in this diversity action, it is well settled that the insurance company is under a duty to negotiate a settlement in good faith and that the interests of the insured must be given “at least equal consideration in evaluating the propriety of a settlement.” Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 314 F.2d 675, at 678 (2 Cir. 1963).
cited
Cited "see"
Jean-Marc Elbez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
See Scalzo v. Hurney, 314 F.2d 675, 675 (3rd Cir.1963); Galvez v. Howerton, 503 F.Supp. 35, 38 (C.D.Cal.1980); Stokes v. INS, 393 F.Supp. 24, 28 (S.D.N.Y.1975).
examined
Cited "see"
Anthony Voccio and Domenic Voccio v. Reliance Insurance Companies, Anthony Voccio and Domenic Voccio v. Reliance Insurance Companies
(3×)
See Brown v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 314 F.2d 675, 679-80 (2d Cir.1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kooyman Ex Rel. Kooyman v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.
(2×)
Keeton, supra at 1140; Annot., Duty of Liability Insurer to Settle or Compromise, 40 A.L.R.2d 168 , 171 (1955); see Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 314 F.2d 675, 677 (2d Cir. 1963).
cited
Cited "see"
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. White
See Brown v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 314 F. 2d 675 (2d Cir. 1963); Home Indemnity Co. v. Williamson, 183 F. 2d 572 (5th Cir. 1950); Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Candida SCALZO, Appellant,
v.
L. W. HURNEY, as District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
v.
L. W. HURNEY, as District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
14034.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Mar 1, 1963.
Rudolph J. DiMassa, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner., Joseph R. Ritchie, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
Kalodner, Staley, Smith.
Cited by 8 opinions | Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1)
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner was ordered deported by the Board of Immigration Appeals. She then filed suit to review that order in the district court, the complaint averring that the Board wrongfully refused to adjust her status to that of a permanent resident under § 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1255. The case was ordered transferred to this court pursuant to the recent amendment providing, with certain exceptions not here relevant, for exclusive review of all final orders of deportation in the circuit courts of appeals. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a.
An analysis of the petition makes it abundantly clear that petitioner challenges the order of deportation only insofar as she seeks review of the Board’s refusal to adjust her status. In the light of our recent opinion in Lam Man Chi et al. v. Bouchard, 314 F.2d 664 (C.A.3, 1963), that determination is collateral to the order of deportation and is not initially reviewable here. Hence, we are without jurisdiction and the case will be remanded to the district court.