in part as the “present ability to consult with [a] lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding”). It put the Commonwealth squarely on notice that the petitioner was asserting a competence claim—and the Commonwealth proceeded unreservedly to waive nonexhaustion as a defense to that claim. That was game, set, and match. Waiver typically is thought to be the voluntary relinquishment of a known right. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). It is no secret that waivers are strong medicine, not casually to be dispensed. A party who chooses to waive a defense surrenders that defense as to the claim asserted and any claim fairly encompassed within it. Cf. New York v. AMRO Realty Corp., 936 F.2d 1420, 1430 & n. 10 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In other words, the waiver extends to the
holding insurer vicariously liable for defense counsels negligent defense of a medical malpractice claim holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second holding that insurer must pay for defense after it declined to provide a defense and coverage was found to exist holding that in waiving a latenotiee defense insurer waived that defense as to any claim arising out of the occurrence in question holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity