9 Cited authorities

  1. Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Gillette Co.

    64 N.Y.2d 304 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 629 times
    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
  2. Williams v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

    2000 Pa. Super. 110 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000)   Cited 152 times
    Concluding that settlement offers or reserves set aside for insureds' claims do not equate to “undisputed amounts” of benefits due under a policy
  3. Pioneer Tower v. State Farm Fire

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3409 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 88 times
    In Pioneer Tower, plaintiff sought recovery under a State Farm policy for damage to its condominium apartment building caused by construction on a neighboring lot.
  4. Westview Associates v. Guaranty National Ins. Co.

    95 N.Y.2d 334 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 82 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that APE did not apply to claim related to child's ingestion of lead paint
  5. Butterfield v. Giuntoli

    448 Pa. Super. 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995)   Cited 94 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
  6. Roman Catholic Diocese Brooklyn v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3264 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 53 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."
  7. Bingham v. New York City Transit Auth.

    99 N.Y.2d 355 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 60 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

  8. Bretton v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company

    66 N.Y.2d 1020 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 25 times

    Decided December 26, 1985 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Edward J. Greenfield, J. Gerald J. Mondora for appellant. Anthony J. Mercorella for respondent. On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Justice Joseph P. Sullivan at the Appellate Division ( 110 A.D.2d 46). Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN

  9. 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.