§Why CasetextPricing

Antonio Garcia, Appellant,v.Government Employees Insurance Company, Respondent.

Brief

23 Cited authorities

  1. Greenfield v. Philles Records

    98 N.Y.2d 562 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 1,913 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a "written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms"

  2. White v. Continental Cas. Co.

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9310 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 383 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding if an insurance contract on its face is reasonably susceptible of only one meaning a court is not free to alter it

  3. Breed v. Ins. Co. of N. Amer

    46 N.Y.2d 351 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 911 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no ambiguity exists where language has "definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of the policy itself, and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion"

  4. Christian v. Christian

    42 N.Y.2d 63 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 564 times
    Holding that "courts should not intrude so as to redesign the bargain arrived at by the parties on the ground that judicial wisdom in retrospect would view one or more of the specific provisions as improvident or one-sided"

  5. Mostow v. State Farm Insurance

    88 N.Y.2d 321 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 142 times
    Affirming an insurance award of over $100,000 when the policy ambiguously provided both a $100,000 per person limit and a $300,000 limit when two or more persons were injured

  6. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v. Donnelly

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2328 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 22 times

    2014-04-3 PREFERRED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. John DONNELLY, et al., Defendants, Robert Jackson, Appellant. Athari & Associates, LLC, Utica (Mo Athari of counsel), for appellant. Schnitter Ciccarelli Mills PLLC, East Amherst (Joseph M. Schnitter of counsel), for respondent. Athari & Associates, LLC, Utica (Mo Athari of counsel), for appellant. Schnitter Ciccarelli Mills PLLC, East Amherst (Joseph M. Schnitter of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM: The Appellate Division order should

  7. Mid City Construction Co. v. Sirius America Insurance

    70 A.D.3d 789 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 23 times

    No. 2008-11607. February 9, 2010. In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant Sirius America Insurance Company is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff, Mid City Construction Co., Inc., in an underlying action entitled Levine v Colony Records Radio Center, LLC, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 16009/05, that defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated September 5, 2008, which granted the motion

  8. Hartol Products Corp. v. Prudential Insurance Co.

    290 N.Y. 44 (N.Y. 1943)   Cited 185 times
    In Hartol Prods. Corp. v. Prudential Ins. Co. (290 N.Y. 44) the accidental death benefits provision of a life policy specifically excluded death resulting from "having been engaged in * * * aviation * * * as a passenger or otherwise" (p. 46).

  9. Pepco Construction of New York, Inc. v. CNA Insurance

    15 A.D.3d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 18 times

    February 14, 2005. In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the defendant CNA Insurance Company is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff Pepco Construction of New York, Inc., in an action entitled Farduchi v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Index No. 23113/99, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated September 17, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment and

  10. Majawalla v. Utica First Ins. Co.

    71 A.D.3d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 11 times

    No. 2009-00621. March 23, 2010. In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in an underlying action entitled Mangerino v Mirani, pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under index No. 3118/05, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated November 19, 2008, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment declaring that the defendant is not so obligated.

  11. Section 500.11 - Alternative procedure for selected appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.11   Cited 536 times

    (a) On its own motion, the court may review selected appeals by an alternative procedure. Such appeals shall be determined on the intermediate appellate court record or appendix and briefs, the writings in the courts below and additional letter submissions on the merits. The clerk of the court shall notify all parties by letter when an appeal has been selected for review pursuant to this section. Appellant may request such review in its preliminary appeal statement. Respondent may request such review