53 Cited authorities

Hooper Associates Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc.
74 N.Y.2d 487 (N.Y. 1989) Cited 1,378 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff could not recover attorneys' fees from the defendant without express language in the agreement permitting such a recovery
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
Continental Cas. v. Rapid-Am
80 N.Y.2d 640 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 601 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that these terms are to be construed narrowly as barring coverage "only when the insured intended the damages"
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
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"
Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Gillette Co.
64 N.Y.2d 304 (N.Y. 1984) Cited 730 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that policy exclusions "are not to be extended by interpretation or implication but are to be accorded a strict and narrow construction" and that any ambiguity will be resolved against the insurer
Joblon v. Solow
91 N.Y.2d 457 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 383 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "routine maintenance" and "decorative modifications," such as the removal and replacement of a burnt-out lightbulb on an illuminated sign or "the minimal cleaning of windows," fall outside the reach of Section 240
Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Insurance
100 N.Y.2d 377 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 216 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding 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
United States F G v. Annunziata
67 N.Y.2d 229 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 257 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that where condition included in one provision is omitted from another, it “must be assumed to have been intentional under accepted canons of contract construction”
Cragg v. Allstate Indemnity Corporation
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 4767 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 122 times
No. 118. Argued May 4, 2011. decided June 9, 2011. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, entered May 7, 2010. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), which had granted defendant Allstate Indemnity Corporation's motion for summary judgment declaring that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify defendant insureds
Section 1926.1401 - Definitions
29 C.F.R. § 1926.1401 Cited 6 times 1 Legal Analyses
A/D director (Assembly/Disassembly director) means an individual who meets this subpart's requirements for an A/D director, irrespective of the person's formal job title or whether the person is non-management or management personnel. Articulating crane means a crane whose boom consists of a series of folding, pin connected structural members, typically manipulated to extend or retract by power from hydraulic cylinders. Assembly/Disassembly means the assembly and/or disassembly of equipment covered
Section 1926.700 - Scope, application, and definitions applicable to this subpart
29 C.F.R. § 1926.700 Cited 3 times
(a)Scope and application. This subpart sets forth requirements to protect all construction employees from the hazards associated with concrete and masonry construction operations performed in workplaces covered under 29 CFR part 1926 . In addition to the requirements in subpart Q, other relevant provisions in parts 1910 and 1926 apply to concrete and masonry construction operations. (b)Definitions applicable to this subpart. In addition to the definitions set forth in § 1926.32 , the following definitions

Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc., et al., Appellants,v.Zurich American Insurance Company, et al., Respondents.

53 Cited authorities

Holding that the plaintiff could not recover attorneys' fees from the defendant without express language in the agreement permitting such a recovery

Holding if an insurance contract on its face is reasonably susceptible of only one meaning a court is not free to alter it

Holding that these terms are to be construed narrowly as barring coverage "only when the insured intended the damages"

Holding that indemnity should be allocated pro rata

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"

Holding that policy exclusions "are not to be extended by interpretation or implication but are to be accorded a strict and narrow construction" and that any ambiguity will be resolved against the insurer

Holding that "routine maintenance" and "decorative modifications," such as the removal and replacement of a burnt-out lightbulb on an illuminated sign or "the minimal cleaning of windows," fall outside the reach of Section 240

Holding 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

Recognizing that where condition included in one provision is omitted from another, it “must be assumed to have been intentional under accepted canons of contract construction”