Koppers Company, Inc. v. The Aetna Casualty And Surety Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding, after analyzing all terms of the relevant policies, that one of the underlying insurers was not a necessary or indispensable party
• finding that the named insurer party’s liability was independent of the absent insurer’s and so the absent insurer was not a necessary party
• finding that the underlying insurer was not a necessary party because, under the applicable insurance policy, the excess insurer’s obligation could be triggered by payments from the insured rather than the underlying insurer
• “As Rule 19(a) is stated in the disjunctive, if either subsection is satisfied, the absent party is a necessary party that should be joined if possible.”
• “[T]he district court’s reference to ‘law of the case’ cannot bind this Court on appeal.”
• “As Rule 19(a) is stated in the disjunctive, if either subsection is satisfied, the absent party is a necessary party that should be joined if possible.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).