Potomac Ins. v. Pennsylvania Mfrs.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[one insurer’s] settlement with [the insured] was not, in and of itself, a bar to [another insurer’s] subsequent suit against it for contribution to defense costs”
• explaining that “[the insured’s] release of its rights . . . did not, by itself, extinguish [a non-settling insurer’s] right to seek contribution”
• affirming trial court’s denial of summary judgment on grounds that controlling document was ambiguous because it was “reasonably susceptible of two interpretations”
• affirming verdict in second litigation, for defense costs in underlying action, because in the underlying action \the parties and their attorneys entered into an intentionally ambiguous agreement and both sides failed to comply with [Rule 4:5-1(b)(2)]\
• affirming verdict in second litigation, for defense costs in underlying action, because in the underlying action \the parties and their attorneys entered into an intentionally ambiguous agreement and both sides failed to comply with [Rule 4:5-1(b)(2)]\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).