Barnhart v. Thomas
540 U.S. 20 (2003) Cited 4,451 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that at step four, in concluding that a claimant may return to her past relevant work, an ALJ need not investigate whether that work exists in significant numbers in the national economy, noting that the inquiry into the "national economy" is reserved for step five
Greenfield v. Philles Records
98 N.Y.2d 562 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 1,916 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding a "written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms"
White v. Continental Cas. Co.
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9310 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 383 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding if an insurance contract on its face is reasonably susceptible of only one meaning a court is not free to alter it
Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
98 N.Y.2d 208 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 436 times 21 Legal AnalysesHolding that indemnity should be allocated pro rata
Breed v. Ins. Co. of N. Amer
46 N.Y.2d 351 (N.Y. 1978) Cited 911 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
People v. Applied Card
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5780 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 201 timesHolding that, when determining whether to apply res judicata to non-parties, courts “must determine whether the severe consequences of preclusion flowing from a finding of privity strike a fair result under the circumstances”
Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Insurance
100 N.Y.2d 377 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 216 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that "[r]easonable minds can disagree" as to whether an "absolute pollution exclusion" bars coverage for injuries resulting from exposure to paint or solvent fumes
Garza v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc.
861 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1988) Cited 235 timesHolding that an interpretation which "would have the effect of rendering at least one clause superfluous or meaningless . . . is not preferred. . . ."
Throgs Neck Bagels, Inc. v. GA Insurance
241 A.D.2d 66 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998) Cited 78 timesHolding that to negate coverage under an exclusion, insurer must show that its construction is the “only construction that [could] fairly be placed thereon”
U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. General Reinsurance Corp.
949 F.2d 569 (2d Cir. 1991) Cited 78 times 1 Legal AnalysesApplying New York law