Search for: "Murphy v. Kuhn" Results 1 - 9 of 9
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Oct 2018, 4:17 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“[T]he issue of whether such additional responsibilities should be recognized and given legal effect is governed by the particular relationship between the parties and is best determined on a case-by-case basis” (Murphy v Kuhn, 90 NY2d 266, 272 [1997]). [read post]
15 Nov 2008, 9:10 am
Absent a specific request for coverage not already in a client's policy, or the existence of a special relationship with the client, an insurance agent or broker has no continuing duty to advise, guide or direct a client to obtain additional coverage (see Murphy v Kuhn, supra; JKT Construction v United States Liab. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 6:49 am
The burden of establishing such a relationship is on the insured (Murphy v Kuhn, supra at 273). [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 5:01 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Servs., Inc., 188 AD3d 624, 626 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Murphy v Kuhn, 90 NY2d 266, 270; MAAD Constr., Inc. v Cavallino Risk Mgt., Inc., 178 AD3d 816, 818). [read post]
28 May 2020, 5:29 am by Schachtman
Another vacuous response to a methodological challenge under Rule 702 is to label the challenge as “going to the weight, not the admissibility” of the challenged expert witness’s testimony. [read post]