International Business Machines Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “Falny ambiguity as to the insurer's duty to defend is resolved in favor of the insured”? under both New York and California law
• finding that if no conflict of law exists, there is no need to do a choice of law analysis and the district court may apply New York law
• explaining that an insurer may only point to extrinsic evidence “unrelated to the merits of the plaintiff’s action” in an effort to avoid the duty to defend (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that a court may only look to extrinsic evidence in determining the duty to defend where the evidence is “unrelated to the merits of [the] plaintiff[’s] action” (citation and quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that New York courts “allow[] an insurer to refuse or withdraw a defense if evidence extrinsic . . . ‘unrelated to the merits of plaintiff’s action[,] plainly take the case outside the policy coverage’” (citation omitted)
• explaining that New York courts “allow[] an insurer to refuse or withdraw a defense if evidence extrinsic . . . ‘unrelated to the merits of plaintiff’s action[,] plainly take the case outside the policy coverage’” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).