HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEM. CO., INC. v. Canron, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs to respondent Canron, Inc., against appellants.
Rusciano Construction Corp., plaintiffs subrogor, purchased pipes from the Warren Pipe & Foundry Division of Shahmoon Industries, Inc., under a 1968 purchase order which set forth a provision limiting any action by either party for breach of the acknowledgment (expressing their complete agreement) to within 13 months after a cause of action accrued. Certain pipe, the subject of this suit, was installed by Rusciano in a Yonkers street on or about…
2Cited by29 opinions
- Schumacher v. Richards Shear Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Carlock v. Pillsbury Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1989
- Taylor v. Continental Group Change in Control Severance Pay PlanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
- MacMillan Bloedel Limited and MacMillan Bloedel, Inc. v. The Flintkote CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
- Leo F. Santa Maria and Joan Santa Maria v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., Leo F. Santa Maria and Joan Santa Maria v. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, Appeal of Empire Ace Insulation Manufacturing Corporation, Estate of Joseph F. Zampitella v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., Estate of Joseph F. Zampitella v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., Appeal of Empire Ace Insulation Manufacturing CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1986
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.