9 Cited authorities

Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Gillette Co.
64 N.Y.2d 304 (N.Y. 1984) Cited 728 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
Williams v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
2000 Pa. Super. 110 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) Cited 188 times
Concluding that settlement offers or reserves set aside for insureds' claims do not equate to “undisputed amounts” of benefits due under a policy
Pioneer Tower v. State Farm Fire
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3409 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 121 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding that "both plaintiff's and defendant's readings of the clauses are reasonable" and therefore interpreting an earth movement exclusion narrowly
Roman Catholic Diocese Brooklyn v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3264 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 70 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that pro rata application was appropriate when the policies did not indicate a desire to assign liability to a single insurer and the injury could not be assigned "to particular policy periods."
Westview Associates v. Guaranty National Ins. Co.
95 N.Y.2d 334 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 101 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that APE did not apply to claim related to child's ingestion of lead paint
Butterfield v. Giuntoli
448 Pa. Super. 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) Cited 104 times
Holding that insurer had the opportunity and the obligation to request specific interrogatories allocating damages between covered and uncovered claims where insurer's attorney attended the trial, was in contact with defense counsel, and sat in on chambers conferences
Bingham v. New York City Transit Auth.
99 N.Y.2d 355 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 75 times
13 Argued January 14, 2003. Decided February 20, 2003. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 30, 2001, which affirmed an order of the Supreme Court (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered in New York County, granting a motion by defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Constantine P. Kokkoris, for appellant. Lawrence Heisler, for respondents. Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley
Bretton v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company
66 N.Y.2d 1020 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 33 times
Stating that courts should not disregard pro-visions of contract that are clear and unequivocal
Smith v. Cassida
403 Pa. 404 (Pa. 1961) Cited 28 times
In Smith v. Cassida, 403 Pa. 404, 169 A.2d 539 (1961), our Supreme Court was presented with a case that involved a claim by the husband of an injured spouse to receive medical care costs and damages for loss of services from Defendant's insurance company.

Erie Insurance Exchange, Appellant,v.J.M. Pereira & Sons, Inc., et al., Respondents.

9 Cited authorities

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

Concluding that settlement offers or reserves set aside for insureds' claims do not equate to “undisputed amounts” of benefits due under a policy

Concluding that "both plaintiff's and defendant's readings of the clauses are reasonable" and therefore interpreting an earth movement exclusion narrowly

Finding that pro rata application was appropriate when the policies did not indicate a desire to assign liability to a single insurer and the injury could not be assigned "to particular policy periods."

Holding that APE did not apply to claim related to child's ingestion of lead paint

Holding that insurer had the opportunity and the obligation to request specific interrogatories allocating damages between covered and uncovered claims where insurer's attorney attended the trial, was in contact with defense counsel, and sat in on chambers conferences

Stating that courts should not disregard pro-visions of contract that are clear and unequivocal

In Smith v. Cassida, 403 Pa. 404, 169 A.2d 539 (1961), our Supreme Court was presented with a case that involved a claim by the husband of an injured spouse to receive medical care costs and damages for loss of services from Defendant's insurance company.