§Why CasetextPricing

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.

Brief

24 Cited authorities

  1. Continental Cas. v. Rapid-Am

    80 N.Y.2d 640 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 602 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that these terms are to be construed narrowly as barring coverage "only when the insured intended the damages"

  2. 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

  3. Liriano v. Hobart Corp.

    92 N.Y.2d 232 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 477 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no duty to warn exists when hazards are known through "general knowledge"

  4. Morgan Stanley Group v. New England Ins. Co.

    225 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 321 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may only consider extrinsic evidence if the language at issue is determined to be ambiguous

  5. Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance

    28 Cal.4th 1059 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 232 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding burden on insurer to prove exclusion where original policy is lost

  6. Keene Corp. v. Ins. Co. of North America

    667 F.2d 1034 (D.C. Cir. 1981)   Cited 339 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that insurance coverage in the context of asbestos-related diseases is triggered by exposure, exposure in residence, and manifestation

  7. Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. United Ins. Co.

    138 N.J. 437 (N.J. 1994)   Cited 188 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that claims of asbestos-related property damage from installation through discovery or remediation (the injurious process) trigger the policies on the risk throughout that period"

  8. Bovis v. Great

    53 A.D.3d 140 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 108 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Determining 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"

  9. Bingham v. New York City Transit Auth.

    99 N.Y.2d 355 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 75 times

    13 Argued January 14, 2003. Decided February 20, 2003. 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 October 30, 2001, which affirmed an order of the Supreme Court (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered in New York County, granting a motion by defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Constantine P. Kokkoris, for appellant. Lawrence Heisler, for respondents. Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley

  10. Muzak Corp. v. Hotel Taft Corp.

    1 N.Y.2d 42 (N.Y. 1956)   Cited 268 times
    Holding that the specific provision trumped the general provision, even in the absence of any inconsistency between those provisions

  11. 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 Analyses
    Authorizing the New York Court of Appeals to review certain certified questions