§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

48 Cited authorities

  1. Continental Cas. v. Rapid-Am

    80 N.Y.2d 640 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 601 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. 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

  4. Hartford Acc. Ind. v. Wesolowski

    33 N.Y.2d 169 (N.Y. 1973)   Cited 488 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding there was one "occurrence" under the event test when the insured vehicle struck one oncoming vehicle, ricocheted off, and struck a second vehicle more than 100 feet away and noting that there was "no intervening agent" and "in common understanding and parlance there was ... a single, inseparable ‘three-car accident’ "

  5. Schering Corp. v. Home Ins. Co.

    712 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1983)   Cited 353 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Schering Corp. v. Home Ins. Co., 712 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1983), the Second Circuit reversed a summary judgment in order to permit the introduction of extrinsic evidence in a case involving the same contract language at issue in American Home Products.

  6. 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"

  7. Allmerica v. Certain Under

    449 Mass. 621 (Mass. 2007)   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing right of insurer to make coverage and settlement decisions independent of third parties, including other insurers

  8. Lighting v. Underwriters Ins. Co.

    35 A.D.3d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 96 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 8358. December 14, 2006. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered March 17, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon granting plaintiff's motion for reargument and renewal, modified an earlier order of the same court (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about December 24, 2003, to deny summary judgment to defendant Continental Casualty Company, affirmed, with costs. Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer Gleser, L.L.P., New York (Jody M. Tawfik

  9. Kajima Const. Serv. v. St. Paul Fire

    227 Ill. 2d 102 (Ill. 2007)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that "to the extent that defense and indemnity costs exceed the primary limits of the targeted insurer, the deselected insurer or insurers’ primary policy must answer for the loss before the insured can seek coverage under an excess policy"

  10. U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Admiral Insurance Co.

    268 Ill. App. 3d 598 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 127 times
    Holding 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 .”

  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