§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

13 Cited authorities

  1. American States Ins. Co. v. Koloms

    177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997)   Cited 316 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that pollution exclusion clause did not extend beyond the traditional environmental arena

  2. Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Asbestos Claims Mgmt

    73 F.3d 1178 (2d Cir. 1995)   Cited 212 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that New York law did not bar coverage of damages even though the insured knew, before the inception date of its policies, "that its products risked asbestosis and cancer diseases and had received a large number of claims"

  3. 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"

  4. Security Insurance v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.

    264 Conn. 688 (Conn. 2003)   Cited 121 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Adopting pro rata approach to allocation of defense costs in long latency loss claims that implicate multiple insurance policies and holding that duty to defend does not extend to periods of self-insurance

  5. Olin Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America

    221 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 94 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that an insurer did not provide a “blanket denial,” because the insured continued to provide the insurer with notice and the insured and insurer continued to negotiate over liability

  6. Mayor and City Coun., Baltimore v. Utica Mutual

    145 Md. App. 256 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002)   Cited 56 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the obligation to indemnify the insured under the circumstances of this case, which involves continuing asbestos product property damage, is to be prorated among all carriers based on their time on the risk. . . . an insured who elects not to carry liability insurance for a period of time . . . will be liable for the prorated share that corresponds to periods of self-insurance or no coverage"

  7. Miller-Wohl Co. v. Commissioner of Labor & Industry

    694 F.2d 203 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 92 times
    Holding that because "[a]n amicus curiae is not a party to litigation," courts will "rarely" give "party prerogatives to those not formal parties"

  8. Fulton Boiler Works, Inc. v. American Motorists Ins. Co.

    828 F. Supp. 2d 481 (N.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 9 times
    Ordering same apportionment method for both indemnification costs and defense costs

  9. Goulds Pumps, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co.

    No. B255439 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Affirming ruling

  10. Nomet Mgmt. Corp. v. Va. Sur. Co.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 33697 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Index No. 600612/2008 04-02-2012 NOMET MANAGEMENT CORP., Plaintiff, v. VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC., Defendants. O. PETER SHERWOOD, J. DECISION AND ORDER : I. OVERVIEW This declaratory judgment action arises from an underlying personal injury lawsuit in Supreme Court, Kings County (the "Underlying Action"), which was commenced against plaintiff, Nomet Management Company ("Nomet") and Neiss Management Corp., for injuries sustained by an infant due to alleged exposure to lead paint at premises located

  11. Section 524 - Effect of discharge

    11 U.S.C. § 524   Cited 6,143 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Enjoining "an act to collect, recover, or offset any such debt" without specifying that only current creditors are enjoined

  12. Section 500.13 - Content and form of briefs in normal course appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.13

    (a) Content. All briefs shall conform to the requirements of section 500.1 of this Part and contain a table of contents, a table of cases and authorities, questions presented, point headings, and, if necessary, a disclosure statement pursuant to section 500.1(f) of this Part. Such disclosure statement shall be included before the table of contents in the party's principal brief. Appellant's brief shall include a statement showing that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and to review