§Why CasetextPricing

Michael J. Carlson, Sr.,, Appellant,v.American International Group, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Brief

17 Cited authorities

  1. Greenfield v. Philles Records

    98 N.Y.2d 562 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 1,908 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. W.W.W. Assocs v. Giancontieri

    77 N.Y.2d 157 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 2,203 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that extrinsic evidence was immaterial, in part because the contract plainly manifested intent that all prior understandings were merged into the contract, which expressed the parties' full agreement

  3. Murdza v. Zimmerman

    99 N.Y.2d 375 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 125 times
    In Murdza, the Court of Appeals recognized that where the lessee of a rental vehicle permits another person to operate the vehicle, the rental company is deemed to have constructively consented to such use, even in a situation where such use violates the terms of the rental agreement executed by the lessor.

  4. Unigard Sec. Ins. Co., Inc. v. North River Ins. Co.

    4 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir. 1993)   Cited 121 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that simple negligence in not disclosing a material fact does not constitute bad faith so as to avoid a policy of reinsurance

  5. Slamow v. Del Col

    79 N.Y.2d 1016 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 120 times
    Stating that "[t]he best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in their writing"

  6. Toops v. Gulf Coast Marine Inc.

    72 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 1996)   Cited 51 times
    Finding that in order for a vehicle to constitute a "hired auto," "there must be a separate contract by which the vehicle is hired or leased to the named insured for his exclusive use or control . . ." and the vehicle "must be under the named insured's exclusive use or control"

  7. Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Stratford Ins. Co.

    777 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2015)   Cited 9 times
    Interpreting an internal inconsistency in an insurance policy with the aid of extrinsic documentation that all parties to the policy shared the same understanding of its provisions

  8. Phillips v. Enterprise Transp

    2006 CA 2141 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that there was no ambiguity in the phrase "hired auto" and that the automobile involved in the accident was not a "hired auto" within the plain meaning of that phrase and that the contract at issue was for the services of an independent contractor and that the contracting did not cover the transportation services of an independent contractor

  9. McGrail v. Equitable Life Assurance Society

    292 N.Y. 419 (N.Y. 1944)   Cited 117 times
    Holding that an insured may be totally disabled even when he may perform "occasional acts relating to his vocation, but not constituting a substantial part of any `daily duty'" (citing Fitzgerald, 84 Cal.App. 689, 258 P. 458)

  10. Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Allstate Indem. Co.

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 31968 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)

    Index No. 504449/13 07-25-2014 VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR ITSELF AND AS SUBROGEE OF GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INC., Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant. HON. DAVID I. SCHMIDT, Justice NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 At an IAS Term, Part Comm 2 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the 9th day of July, 2014. PRESENT: HON. DAVID I. SCHMIDT, Justice. Upon the foregoing papers, plaintiff

  11. Section 387.9 - Financial responsibility, minimum levels

    49 C.F.R. § 387.9   Cited 65 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Adopting minimum levels of financial responsibility

  12. Section 387.303 - Security for the protection of the public: Minimum limits

    49 C.F.R. § 387.303   Cited 8 times

    (a)Definitions. (1)Primary security means public liability coverage provided by the insurance or surety company responsible for the first dollar of coverage. (2)Excess security means public liability coverage above the primary security, or above any additional underlying security, up to and including the required minimum limits set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (b) (1) Motor carriers subject to § 387.301(a)(1) are required to have security for the required minimum limits as follows: