Arguments of Interest In the Court of Appeals for the Week of January 4, 2016

Arguments in the Court of Appeals for the week of January 4, 2016, that may be of interest to commercial litigators:

Case No. 4: Selective Insurance Company of America v. County of Rensselaer (to be argued Monday, January 4, 2016) ("Insurance--Liability insurance--Police Professional Liability Policy--Settlement of class action lawsuit seeking damages for individuals strip searched pursuant to an allegedly unconstitutional policy--Whether the underlying allegations in the class action lawsuit require County to pay insurers one deductible for each class plaintiff--Whether the attorneys' fees and costs arising out of the class action lawsuit are to be allocated ratably to each class action plaintiff; Whether the insurers acted in bad faith in their representation of the County in the class action lawsuit; Whether insurers are liable for County's attorneys' fees in defending the action."). See the Third Department's decision here.
Case No. 5: Red Zone LLC v. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (to be argued Tuesday, January 5, 2016) ("Attorney and client--Malpractice--Alleged negligent drafting of agreement--Whether plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment; Limitation of actions--Tolling--Whether the Appellate Division erred in concluding that the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine; Whether the courts below erred in dismissing defendant's affirmative defense of comparative negligence.") See New York County Commercial Division Justice Melvin Schweitzer's opinion here, and the First Department's Decision here.
Case No. 8: Matter of Monarch Consulting, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PA (to be argued Thursday, January 7, 2016) ("Arbitration--Agreement to arbitrate--Whether insureds are compelled to arbitrate their disputes with their Workers' Compensation Insurance carrier even though the carrier failed to file the arbitration agreements with the California Department of Insurance as California law requires."). See our post about the First Department's decision here.