Simply including a requirement in a contract to add certain parties as additional insureds under a commercial general liability insurance (CGL) policy may not be enough to ensure such coverage is provided in New York. In New York City Hous. Auth. v. Harleysville Worcester Ins. Co., 226 A.D.3d 804 (2024), the New York Supreme Court
Latest Post
More Posts
USDOT’S DBE Program Blocked in Kentucky and Indiana
New Mexico Holds One-Sided Dispute Resolution Provisions Are Unenforceable
Rhode Island Closes One Bridge and May Have Burned Others with Ensuing Lawsuit
New York’s Highest Court Weighs in on N.Y. Labor Law
Attorneys’ Fees and the American Arbitration Association Rule
Second Circuit Affirms Win for General Contractor on No Damages for Delay Provision
Water Alone is Not Property Damage under a CGL policy in Connecticut
Federal DOT’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Challenged as Unconstitutional
New York Restrictions on Flow Through Provision in Subcontracts
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS
Blogs
Firm/Org