§Why CasetextPricing

Keyspan Gas East Corporation, Appellant,v.Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., Defendant, Century Indemnity Company et al., Respondents.

Brief

17 Cited authorities

  1. Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 538 Madison Realty Co.

    1 N.Y.3d 470 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 666 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no intent to add terms where sophisticated parties could have added a term, but failed to do so

  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. Travelers Insurance v. Eljer Manufacturing, Inc.

    197 Ill. 2d 278 (Ill. 2001)   Cited 300 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that general liability policies "are intended to protect the insured from liability for injury or damage to the persons or property of others; they are not intended to pay the costs associated with repairing or replacing the insured's defective work and products, which are purely economic losses"

  4. 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

  5. Crossmann Communities v. Harleysville Ml. Ins. Co.

    395 S.C. 40 (S.C. 2011)   Cited 91 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the definition of “occurrence” in CGL policies is ambiguous and must therefore be construed in favor of the insured, but also clarifying “that negligent or defective construction resulting in damage to otherwise non-defective components may constitute ‘property damage,’ but the defective construction would not”

  6. Pilkington N. Am. v. Travelers

    2006 Ohio 6551 (Ohio 2006)   Cited 86 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "[t]he duty of defense is much broader than the duty of indemnification and can be invoked even though no liability is ultimately established"

  7. Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. Cnty. of Rensselaer

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 1001 (N.Y. 2016)   Cited 64 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 4. 02-11-2016 SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al., Respondents–Appellants, v. COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, Appellant–Respondent. Burke, Scolamiero, Mortati & Hurd, LLP, Albany (Melissa J. Smallacombe and Mark G. Mitchell of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Galbo & Associates, Buffalo (Richard A. Galbo and Leo C. Kellett of counsel), for respondents-appellants. ABDUS–SALAAM, J. Burke, Scolamiero, Mortati & Hurd, LLP, Albany (Melissa J. Smallacombe and Mark G. Mitchell of counsel), for appellant-respondent

  8. Acmat Corp. v. Greater N.Y. Mutual Ins. Co.

    282 Conn. 576 (Conn. 2007)   Cited 68 times
    Summarizing approaches taken by state courts

  9. Int'l Minerals Chem. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

    168 Ill. App. 3d 361 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)   Cited 114 times
    Interpreting "accidental" to mean that which is "unintended and unexpected from the standpoint of the insured"

  10. American Home Prod. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

    565 F. Supp. 1485 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)   Cited 118 times
    Finding provision unambiguous, but rejecting Liberty Mutual's interpretation, holding instead that it does not apply where harm-causing exposure occurred before policy termination date, and resulting damage continues after that date