Maroney v. NY CENT. MUT. FIRE

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “[i]f the insurer intended to limit [an] exclusion * * * it could have done so explicitly, as it does in the very same policy’s * * * provisions”
• “[t]he words arising out of have broader significance ... and are ordinarily understood to mean originating from, incident to, or having connection with....”
• “Because the insurer joined the insured in seeking a declaration of its rights ... Insurance Law § 3420 does not preclude consideration of the coverage issues in this case”
• \An insurer does not wish to be liable for losses arising from risks associated with a premises for which the insurer has not evaluated the risk and received a premium....\
• \An insurer does not wish to be liable for losses arising from risks associated with a premises for which the insurer has not evaluated the risk and received a premium....\
• using “arise out of” and “arise from” interchangeably

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).