8 Cited authorities

  1. Dean v. Tower Ins. Co. of New York

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 7142 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment was inappropriate because a contract term was ambiguous
  2. AB Green Gansevoort, LLC v. Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc.

    102 A.D.3d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 55 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting similar language as requiring "a written agreement between the insured and the organization seeking coverage to add that organization as an additional insured"
  3. Linarello v. City University of New York

    6 A.D.3d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 64 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that even if construction manager were third-party beneficiary of contracts requiring that it be named as additional insured on subcontractors' insurance policy, "that would simply mean that [construction manager] has standing to sue" subcontractors for failing to procure insurance as promised
  4. Allstate Life Insurance v. BFA Ltd. Partnership

    287 Conn. 307 (Conn. 2008)   Cited 42 times

    (SC 18017) Syllabus The plaintiff, which had loaned the defendant borrowers $8.2 million, sought to recover certain costs and fees associated with pollution remediation on a commercial property that the defendants had provided as security for the loan. The plaintiff had incurred the environmental costs in order to sell the property, which it had obtained in an action for strict foreclosure after the defendants had defaulted on the loan. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants, in refusing to indemnify

  5. First Mercury Ins. Co. v. Shawmut Woodworking & Supply, Inc.

    660 F. App'x 30 (2d Cir. 2016)   Cited 4 times
    Applying Connecticut law
  6. Camrex Contractors v. Reliance Marine Applicators

    579 F. Supp. 1420 (E.D.N.Y. 1984)   Cited 10 times
    Reasoning that there was a contract despite open terms because “extrinsic evidence was available to render the new work price reasonably definite” and because the court could “fill the contractual gap by utilizing the factual predicate in the record and by receiving expert testimony on industry price standards” and could “summon an expert to fix the industrial standard for comparable work”
  7. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Bragg Crane Rigging Co.

    180 Cal.App.3d 639 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 8 times

    Docket No. G001458. April 30, 1986. Appeal from Superior Court of Orange County, No. 308397, Ronald Eugene Owen, Judge. COUNSEL Pray, Price, Williams Russell and James B. Russell for Cross-defendant and Appellant. Lawler, Felix Hall, Richard C. Neal, J. Michael Echevarria and Edwin W. Duncan for Cross-complainant and Respondent. OPINION SONENSHINE, J. Bragg Crane Rigging Company appeals the granting of declaratory relief in favor of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (Chevron). We affirm. On August 1, 1977, Bragg

  8. 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