18 Cited authorities

  1. Stand. Vene. Blind Co. v. Am. Empire Ins. Co.

    503 Pa. 300 (Pa. 1983)   Cited 730 times
    Holding that where "the policy limitation relied upon by the insurer to deny coverage is clearly worded and conspicuously displayed, the insured may not avoid the consequences of that limitation by proof that [s]he failed to read the limitation or that [s]he did not understand it"
  2. Gnrl. Refractories v. First State

    500 F.3d 306 (3d Cir. 2007)   Cited 238 times
    Holding that simply because a party has a right to seek contribution or indemnity from a nonparty does not render the latter indispensable under FRCP 19
  3. Zurich Ins v. Shearson Lehman

    84 N.Y.2d 309 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 287 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that New York courts interpret contracts under the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the transaction
  4. Auten v. Auten

    308 N.Y. 155 (N.Y. 1954)   Cited 404 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Auten v. Auten, 308 N.Y. 155, 124 N.E.2d 99, 50 A.L.R.2d 246 (1954), New York adopted the "center of gravity" or "grouping of contacts" approach for choice-of-law problems in contract situations having elements connected with more than one jurisdiction.
  5. Travelers Cas. v. Insurance Co. North America

    609 F.3d 143 (3d Cir. 2010)   Cited 70 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that though the district court entered judgment in favor of Travelers on August 14, 2006, "post-judgment interest on Travelers' award of prejudgment interest did not begin to run until the December 5, 2007 order was entered quantifying the amount in prejudgment interest owed to Travelers."
  6. Jacobs Constructors, Inc. v. NPS Energy Services, Inc.

    264 F.3d 365 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 86 times
    Holding that court should apply substantive law of a state where the parties do not dispute that it applies
  7. Houbigant, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co.

    374 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 2004)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that a court's "mere[] voic[ing of] the words 'fair' and 'reasonable,' but fail[ing] to state any specific basis for such a finding . . . does [not] afford us a basis of review"
  8. Kropa v. Gateway Ford

    2009 Pa. Super. 91 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009)   Cited 34 times

    Argued: March 18, 2009. Filed: May 15, 2009. Reargument Denied: July 21, 2009. Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Wyoming County, Civil Division, No. 2007-00990, Vanston, J. Joseph P. Lenahan, Scranton, for appellants. Robert Foster, Philadelphia, for Gateway and Discovery, appellees. BEFORE: BOWES, DONOHUE, and FREEDBERG, JJ. OPINION BY FREEDBERG, J.: ¶ 1 Appellant, Claire Kropa, appeals from the order entered on July 21, 2008, granting summary judgment in favor of Gateway Ford ("Gateway") and

  9. Delta Seaboard Well v. Amer. Int'l Special

    602 F.3d 340 (5th Cir. 2010)   Cited 13 times
    Stating that we give effect to the plain language of a contract
  10. Dow Chemical Co. v. Assoc. Indemnity

    724 F. Supp. 474 (E.D. Mich. 1989)   Cited 37 times
    In Dow Chemical Co. v. Associated Indem. Corp., 724 F. Supp. 474 (E.D. Mich. 1989), a mortar additive had caused corrosion which manifested itself years after construction had been completed.