Search for: "Home Insurance Co. v. New York"
Results 61 - 80
of 529
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jan 2010, 8:49 am
Co. v E.E. [read post]
26 Jan 2008, 7:06 am
Co. v. [read post]
11 Dec 2010, 5:45 am
Co. v New York Fire-Shield, Inc., 63 AD3d 1249, 1251 [2009]). [read post]
8 Oct 2015, 5:00 am
American Home Products, 748 N.Y.S.2d 548 (N.Y.A.D. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 3:05 pm
States Power Co. v. [read post]
10 Oct 2008, 9:53 am
Since defendant Scuderi, the named insured, did not reside with his son-in-law Ramos at the premises where the underlying incident occurred, and Ramos did not live in or occupy the premises where defendant Scuderi resided on the date of the underlying incident, Ramos cannot be considered a relative who resided in the named insured's household (see Biundo v New York Central Mutual, 14 AD3d 559 [2005]; cf. [read post]
18 Sep 2013, 1:34 pm
Facts: Pacific Indemnity sold a fire insurance policy to an entity known as Quaker Hills, which owned a custom-built home in upstate New York. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 7:29 pm
Term, 2nd Dept., 9th & 10th Dists., decided 7/16/2010) New York property insurers haven't been faring well lately in seeking to enforce their policies' two-year suit limitations period. [read post]
6 Jun 2008, 10:02 am
Co. v. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 12:35 pm
Co. of New York Miller v. [read post]
26 Oct 2012, 7:31 am
Tower Insurance Co. of New York, an insurance coverage action in which the controversy involved the loss of alleged “residence premises” where such premises were defined for the insured as “where you reside. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 2:58 pm
A recent lawsuit entitled Kaufman v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 1:49 am
Hodson, and former Superintendent of the New York State Insurance Department Gregory V. [read post]
11 May 2008, 4:10 pm
(Sup.Ct., NY Co., decided 4/16/2008)There are plenty of reported New York cases addressing the legal consequences of an insured's policy application misrepresentations on first-party property coverage claims. [read post]
31 Jul 2008, 7:49 am
Co. v. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 6:36 pm
New York case law is consistent that in absence of privity, a cause of action may not be maintained for breach of contract (Plaisir v Royal Home Sales, 81 AD3d 799 [2d Dept 2011]; CDJ Builders Corp v Hudson Group Construction, 67 AD3d 720 [2009]; Grinnell v Ultimate Realty, LLC, 38 AD3d 600 [2007]; M. [read post]
6 Oct 2009, 8:06 am
STATE OF NEW YORK v. [read post]
24 Nov 2008, 7:21 am
With the New York courts and Insurance Department now recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, I guess it was about time for the Second Department to recognize in-laws as relatives. [read post]
28 Apr 2023, 11:36 am
Co. v. [read post]
15 Dec 2008, 7:56 am
Ruffino v New York City Tr. [read post]
