Legal Opinion
Kimball v. Chautauqua Patrons' Insurance
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 2, 1990PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
It is well established that policy language excluding liability for bodily injury to an employee is not specific enough to exclude liability on a third-party claim for contribution or apportionment (see, Insurance Co. v Dayton Tool & Die Works, 57 NY2d 489; Graphic Arts Mut. Ins. Co. v Bakers Mut. Ins. Co., 45 NY2d 551; North Riv. Ins. Co. v United Natl. Ins. Co., 152 AD2d 500; American White Cross Labs, v North Riv. Ins. Co., 101 AD2d 780; Weeks v County of Oneida, 91 AD2d 1165; cf., Ramirez v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 133 AD2d 146, 147, where language excluding " ’any obligation of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Bakers Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Insurance Co. of North America v. Dayton Tool & Die Works, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
- In re the Liquidation of Consolidated Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Ramirez v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Lumbermens Mutual Insurance v. Lumber Mutual InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Doyle v. Pawtucket Mutual InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997