GREAT LAKES REINSURANCE (UK), PLC v. Rosin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “there is no established and entrenched federal precedent concerning the effect of a breach of a ‘named operator’ warranty”
• finding that “New York has a sufficient substantial relationship with [the insurer] to allow application of New York law[.]”
• collecting cases and concluding that “New York has a sufficient substantial relationship with Great Lakes to allow application of New York law”
• “Because [the claimant’s son] was not a ‘named operator’ or ‘covered person’ under [the claimant’s] policy, there was a breach of an express warranty.”
• surveying Fifth and Eleventh Circuit precedent through 2010

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).