Home/New York Court of Appeals/Cenven, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

Cenven, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

41 N.Y. 842
New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 15, 1977·Published

Opinion

Memorandum. Order affirmed, with costs.

(See Wagman v American Fid. & Cas. Co., 304 NY 490, esp 494-495; Lamberti v Anaco Equip. Corp., 16 AD2d 121, esp 123-124.) It would be unwise to proliferate fine distinctions from and exceptions to the now judicially determined language "loading and unloading”, absent other qualifying language establishing a contrary meaning or ambiguity, either in an indemnification agreement or in an insurance policy. Moreover, the doctrine of stare decisis should not be departed from except under compelling circumstances (cf. People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479, 487-491; Matter of Eckart, 39 NY2d 493, 498-500; see, also, Matter of Garwitt, 41 NY2d 845).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in a memorandum.

[844] Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cenven, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 41 N.Y. 842 (N.Y. 1977).

41 N.Y. 842 (Cenven, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wagman v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co.
109 N.E.2d 592 (New York Court of Appeals, 1952)
People v. Hobson
348 N.E.2d 894 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
In re the Estate of Eckart
348 N.E.2d 905 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
Lamberti v. Anaco Equipment Corp.
16 A.D.2d 121 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1962)