Harris Flooring Co. v. Pritch Flooring Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the defendant insurer breached the covenant of good faith by substantially reducing the likelihood that the plaintiffs would receive their insurance coverage
• holding veil piercing is appropriate where “owners, through their domination, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against [plaintiff]” (citation omitted)
• declining to preclude private action absent opportunity by plaintiffs to have participated in the regulatory approval at issue
• implied covenant breached where a company “unfairly shifted the risks of default and delinquencies” to creditors (citation omitted)
• “Those seeking to pierce a corporate veil . . . bear a heavy burden.” (quoting TNS Holdings v. MKI Sec. Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 335, 339 (1998))
• regulator’s approval did not preempt insureds’ claims or have collateral estoppel effect

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).