Paul Tishman Co., Inc. v. Carney & Del Guidice, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum. In agreeing with the majority at the Appellate Division, we would merely add that defendant’s insurable interest under the fire insurance policies here in question was limited to its property interest in the building under construction —■ i.e., the tools, labor and material furnished or owned by the defendant: Since no part of the damages alleged by the plaintiff in this litigation was for destruction of any property owned or furnished by the defendant, it cannot be said that the defendant was a coinsured under the terms of the policy with respect to the loss caused by the fire.
Chi…
2Cited by27 opinions
- Federal Insurance v. Arthur Andersen & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1990
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Michigan Mutual InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- South Tippecanoe School Building Corp. v. Shambaugh & Son, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1979
- Frank Briscoe Company, Inc. v. Georgia Sprinkler Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- S.S.D.W. Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1990
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.