26 Cited authorities

Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
98 N.Y.2d 208 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 436 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that indemnity should be allocated pro rata
Olin Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co.
704 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 217 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that under New York law, courts are to apply the general rules of contract interpretation
Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Asbestos Claims Mgmt
73 F.3d 1178 (2d Cir. 1995) Cited 212 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that New York law did not bar coverage of damages even though the insured knew, before the inception date of its policies, "that its products risked asbestosis and cancer diseases and had received a large number of claims"
E.R. Squibb Sons, Inc v. Lloyd's Companies
241 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 169 times
Holding that "settlement agreements are not contracts of insurance"
Boston Gas Co. v. Century Indemnity Co.
454 Mass. 337 (Mass. 2009) Cited 126 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding depends on the policy language at hand
Roman Catholic Diocese Brooklyn v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3264 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 70 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that pro rata application was appropriate when the policies did not indicate a desire to assign liability to a single insurer and the injury could not be assigned "to particular policy periods."
In re Midland Ins. Co.
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 2716 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 74 times
Endorsing insured's domicile as proxy for the principal location of insured risk when a policy covers risk in multiple states
Olin Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America
221 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 94 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that an insurer did not provide a “blanket denial,” because the insured continued to provide the insurer with notice and the insured and insurer continued to negotiate over liability
Hercules, Inc. v. AIU Insurance
784 A.2d 481 (Del. 2001) Cited 77 times
Holding that the trial court had properly instructed the jury as to the meanings of two total pollution exclusions
Viking Pump, Inc. v. Century Indem. Co.
2 A.3d 76 (Del. Ch. 2009) Cited 58 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that an insurance company headquartered in New York could reasonably expect that New York law would apply to the insurance policies at issue

In the Matter of Viking Pump, Inc. and Warren Pumps, LLC, Insurance Appeals. <br />--------------------------------<br /> Viking Pump, Inc. and Warren Pumps, LLC, Appellants, TIG Insurance Company, et al., Respondents.

26 Cited authorities

Holding that indemnity should be allocated pro rata

Holding that under New York law, courts are to apply the general rules of contract interpretation

Holding that New York law did not bar coverage of damages even though the insured knew, before the inception date of its policies, "that its products risked asbestosis and cancer diseases and had received a large number of claims"

Holding that "settlement agreements are not contracts of insurance"

Holding depends on the policy language at hand

Finding that pro rata application was appropriate when the policies did not indicate a desire to assign liability to a single insurer and the injury could not be assigned "to particular policy periods."

Endorsing insured's domicile as proxy for the principal location of insured risk when a policy covers risk in multiple states

Finding that an insurer did not provide a “blanket denial,” because the insured continued to provide the insurer with notice and the insured and insurer continued to negotiate over liability

Holding that the trial court had properly instructed the jury as to the meanings of two total pollution exclusions

Finding that an insurance company headquartered in New York could reasonably expect that New York law would apply to the insurance policies at issue