§Why CasetextPricing

Ronald J. Papa et al.,, Appellants,v.Associated Indemnity Corporation et al., Respondents.

Brief

6 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. 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”

  3. 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

  4. Mostow v. State Farm Insurance

    88 N.Y.2d 321 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 142 times
    Affirming an insurance award of over $100,000 when the policy ambiguously provided both a $100,000 per person limit and a $300,000 limit when two or more persons were injured

  5. 242-44 East 77th Street, LLC v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance

    31 A.D.3d 100 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 86 times
    Noting that "the meaning of a word in a series of words is determined by the company it keeps"

  6. Hudson v. Allstate Insurance Company

    25 A.D.3d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 12 times
    Examining a similar clause and finding that the pipe in question "was not below the surface of the ground" where it entered the "house through the foundation wall and ran through artificially created gravel material that filled the area above the ground"