Union Labor Life Insurance v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland

228 A.D.2d 244, 643 N.Y.2d 566, 643 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6452
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 11, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Each term in the bond issued by the non-party surety, if not specifically defined in the bond, "should be given its plain, ordinary and proper meaning” (Dupack v Nationwide Leisure Corp., 73 AD2d 903, 905). So viewed, the language of the National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh bond excludes coverage of plaintiff’s loss because the loss was not on a note "executed” by a "customer” of plaintiff. Thus, that bond does not constitute "other insurance” within the meaning of defendant’s bond. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

Union Labor Life Insurance v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 228 A.D.2d 244, 643 N.Y.2d 566, 643 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

228 A.D.2d 244 (Union Labor Life Insurance v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Iron Workers District Council v. D. R. Chamberlain Corp.
175 Misc. 2d 1011 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)