North River Insurance Company v. Cigna Reinsurance Company

How courts have described this case

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

• stating three major grounds include “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence [not available previously]; [or], (3) the need to correct clear error [of law] or prevent manifest injustice.”
• simply referring to the duty of utmost good faith as the duty of good faith
• reinsurer was denied discovery of documents which the reinsured and its attorney prepared for arbitration
• “To permit the reinsurer to revisit coverage issues resolved between the insurer and its insured would place insurers in the untenable position of advancing defenses in coverage contests that would be used against them by reinsurers seeking to deny coverage.”
• “[W]here a previously ignored legal theory takes on new importance due to an intervening development in the law, it is appropriate to exercise discretion to allow a party to revive that theory.” (internal citations omitted)
• providing an overview of how reinsurance coverage functions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).