Goldman v. Rafel Estates, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• applying the same well-established rule of law, and holding that the inured’s conviction for manslaughter in the second degree based upon his reckless conduct was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that the insured intended all of the underlying plaintiff’s injuries
• no duty to de fend if there is “no possible factual or legal basis on which it might eventually be obligated to indemnify”
• coverage was found even though the insured pleaded guilty of reckless crime where the victim was killed when a gun accidentally discharged while being cleaned by the insured
• coverage was found even though the insured pleaded guilty of reckless crime where the victim was killed when a gun accidentally discharged while being cleaned by the insured
• “In limited circumstances, a particular issue expressly or necessarily decided in a criminal proceeding may be given preclusive effect in a subsequent affected civil action.” (emphasis added)
• “[A]n insurer can be relieved of its duty to defend if it establishes as a matter of law that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which it might eventually be obligated to indemnify its insured under any policy provision.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).