Legal Opinion · Dissent

The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority

New York Court of Appeals

Decided June 6, 2017No. 57Published

1DissentFahey, J.

I respectfully dissent. Bedrock principles of insurance contract interpretation demand that we conclude that defendants are entitled to coverage with respect to the underlying matter as additional insureds under the policy of insurance issued to nonparty Breaking Solutions, Inc. (BSI) by plaintiff.

Facts

This declaratory judgment action overlies a personal injury action that had its genesis in the excavation of a subway tunnel in Brooklyn. In July 2008, defendant New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) contracted with BSI for the supply of “concrete breakers” and related labor in connection…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Breed v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. Chimart Associates v. PaulNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
  5. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Allstate InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 2002

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API