§Why CasetextPricing

Country-Wide Insurance Company, Appellant,v.Preferred Trucking Services Corp., et al., Defendants, Filippo Gallina, et al., Respondents.

Brief

9 Cited authorities

  1. First Financial Ins. Co. v. Jetco Contr.

    1 N.Y.3d 64 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 316 times
    Holding an unexplained delay of forty-eight days following receipt of a claim notice to be "unreasonable as a matter of law"

  2. Continental Cas. v. Stradford

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9256 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 69 times

    No. 180. Argued October 22, 2008. decided November 25, 2008. APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered December 11, 2007. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, (1) reversed, on the law, an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Philip G. Minardo, J.), which had granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, denied the cross motion of defendants Hector Gunaratne, Rose Gunaratne, and Sumanadasa Perera for summary

  3. Cummins v. County of Onondaga

    84 N.Y.2d 322 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 81 times
    In Cummins (84 NY2d at 324), the issue was whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's damage verdict for conscious pain and suffering where the decedent drowned after she lost control of her car and it flipped over and landed in a pond.

  4. Rios v. Smith

    95 N.Y.2d 647 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 65 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "a parent owes a duty to protect third parties from harm that is clearly foreseeable from the child's improvident use or operation of a dangerous instrument, where such use is found to be subject to the parent's control"

  5. Painting v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh

    92 A.D.3d 104 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 37 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a denial of coverage, based on the claimants' lack of additional insured status, "would not even have been subject to [Insurance Law] section 3420 (d) . . ."

  6. 2540 Associates v. Assicurazioni Generali

    271 A.D.2d 282 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 56 times
    Stating that "[i]t is settled that an insurance broker is the agent of the insured"

  7. Harvey v. Mazal Am. Partners

    79 N.Y.2d 218 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 60 times
    Instructing Appellate Division to use, in setting remittitur, only the "deviates materially" standard, and not the "shock the conscience" test

  8. In Matter of New York v. Rashid

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 1316 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 24 times

    No. 205. Argued October 19, 2010. Decided November 23, 2010. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered December 22, 2009. The Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J.; op 25 Misc 3d 318), which had (1) granted respondent's motion to dismiss a petition seeking sex offender civil management of respondent pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law

  9. Haynes v. Haynes

    83 N.Y.2d 954 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 8 times

    Decided June 30, 1994 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Phyllis B. Gangel-Jacob, J. Arnold Davis, New York City, for appellant. Liddle, Robinson Shoemaker, New York City (Miriam M. Robinson of counsel), guardian ad litem, respondent pro se. Alfieri, Frohman, Unger Primoff, New York City (Peter J. Unger of counsel), for Sophy P.Q. Haynes, respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified