White v. Continental Cas. Co.
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9310 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 383 timesHolding if an insurance contract on its face is reasonably susceptible of only one meaning a court is not free to alter it
Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
98 N.Y.2d 208 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 435 times 21 Legal AnalysesHolding that indemnity should be allocated pro rata
Oppenheimer Co. v. Oppenheim
86 N.Y.2d 685 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 447 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that obligation by landlord to furnish proof of sale or development was not condition of effective termination where contract merely required that such proof be furnished “ when such notice [of termination] is given”
Fieldston Inc v. Hermitage
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 1361 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 135 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that the CGL insurer had the sole primary duty to defend the mutually insured, “notwithstanding the fact that [the D&O insurer] would appear to have an obligation to indemnify [the insured] for a greater portion of the causes of action, if successfully prosecuted”
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co.
536 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. 1995) Cited 182 timesHolding that when environmental damage resulted from a single chemical spill in 1977, only those policies on the risk in 1977 were responsible for the cost of remediation of ensuing continual leach of chemicals into groundwater until detection in 1988
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
45 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 154 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that the installation of asbestos-containing materials caused immediate physical injury to the building because asbestos is ultrahazardous
Bovis v. Great
53 A.D.3d 140 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) Cited 108 times 2 Legal AnalysesDetermining the priority of primary, excess, and umbrella insurance policies "[b]ased on an examination of the terms and role of each insurance policy at issue"
State Farm Fire v. Limauro
65 N.Y.2d 369 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 184 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding that the more specific language was not necessary for the language to otherwise manifest an intention to negate, but nowhere implying that the specific language, when present, could fail to express such an intention
U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Admiral Insurance Co.
268 Ill. App. 3d 598 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) Cited 127 timesHolding that the insured may offer “testimony, evidence or depositions obtained or adduced in the underlying cases ” because “whether Gypsum's anticipation of liability was reasonable would naturally turn on the quality and quantity of proof which Gypsum would expect to be offered against it in the underlying action .”
American Home Assurance Co. v. International Ins. Co.
90 N.Y.2d 433 (N.Y. 1997) Cited 117 timesHolding that because the plaintiff's arguments concerned "a pure question of law," "the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not preclude [the plaintiff] from litigating that issue again"
Section 500.27 - Discretionary proceedings to review certified questions from Federal courts and other courts of last resort
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.27 Cited 230 times 2 Legal AnalysesAuthorizing the New York Court of Appeals to review certain certified questions