underlying claim is triggered. Plaintiffs ask that the court delete reference to “diagnosable and compensable” injury in fact since no such limitation exists in either New York or Missouri law. Upon reconsideration, this court agrees with plaintiffs. The “diagnosable and compensable” language was formulated by Judge Sofaer of the Southern District of New York in American Home Prods. Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 565 F.Supp. 1485, 1489 (S.D.N.Y.1983). That opinion was affirmed by the Second Circuit, but was modified to delete the “diagnosable and compensable” limitation because there was no basis for it in the policy language. American Home Prods. Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 748 F.2d 760, 765-66 (2d Cir.1984); see also Abex Corp. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 740 F.2d 119 (D.C.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). The Missouri case relied on predominantly by
recognizing new york law as not imposing a diagnosable and compensable limitation holding that new york law applies to this matter holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york recognizing the rule and surveying new york law holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership