New York CM Report of Recent Decisions (2009v4)
2009 Volume 4
A summary of significant recent developments in the law focusing on substantive issues of litigation and featuring analysis and commentary on special points of interest.
Download this publication as a PDF
Articles in this report
A Sunset Clause In A Real Property Agreement Is Unambiguous Pursuant To New York Law
In Riverside South Planning Corp. v. CRP/Extell Riverside, L.P., et al, the Court of Appeals was asked to determine the scope of a sunset clause that appeared in a 1993 Letter Agreement relating to the development of a parcel of real property.
Court Declines To Recognize Common-Law Labor And Material Payment Bond Actions And Strictly Construes State's Labor And Material Payment Bond Statute Of Limitations
In a matter of first impression, the Connecticut Supreme Court decided that any claim that may be asserted against a labor and material bond, required by General Statutes § 49-41, must be asserted within the time limit provided by General Statutes § 49-42 (b).
Insurance Companies May Not Blindly Rely On Statements Made By A Potential Insured When Issuing Policies
Ispat Inland ("Ispat"), operated a steel-making facility in East Chicago, Indiana since the early 1900s. In 1993, Ispat entered into a consent decree with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency following Ispat's release of hazardous substances into waters of Lake Michigan.
One More Chance: Appellate Court Affirms Conditional Decision Allowing Insured To Comply With Policy's Cooperation Clause
In Erie Insurance Company v. JMM Properties, commercial property insurer, Erie Insurance Company ("Erie") brought a declaratory judgment action against its insured, JMM Properties, LLC ("JMM"), seeking a declaration that Erie's denial of JMM's claim was proper based on JMM's breach of the policy's cooperation clause.
Settlement Agreement Made In Open Court Deemed Invalid For Failure To Enter Into The Record
In Diarassouba v. Urban, plaintiff's counsel requested to place a settlement on the record, but the trial court directed him to do so after the jury rendered its verdict.
U.S. Court Of Appeals Holds In Favor Of Insurer; An Insured May Not "Drink Himself Into Insurance Coverage"
Thomas W. Mehlman ("Mehlman") was insured under two separate State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. ("State Farm") policies, a Homeowners policy and an Umbrella policy. Mehlman's victim filed a suit against his Estate in the Court of Common Pleas, alleging, inter alia, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
