GLADSTEIN ISAAC v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY (2011)

GLADSTEIN & ISAAC, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: March 08, 2011

TOM, J.P., SWEENY, RENWICK, FREEDMAN, MANZANET-DANIELS, JJ.

Babchik & Young, LLP, White Plains (James E. Musurca of counsel), for appellant. Harvey Gladstein & Partners, LLC, New York (Ronald P. Berman of counsel), for respondents.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered December 3, 2009, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant had a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiff in an underlying action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that the allegations in the underlying complaint that plaintiffs' law firm negligently hired and supervised an attorney who purportedly made sexual advances to a client, fall within the type of errors and omissions coverage provided by defendant's professional liability insurance policy (see Watkins Glen Cent. School Dist. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 286 A.D.2d 48 [2001] ).

While the allegations may not fall under the policy definition of “Personal Injury,” the court properly determined that they fall within the policy's definition of “Wrongful Act.”

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network