Schering Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Home Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, even when discovery is underway, “summary judgment should not be granted while the party opposing judgment timely seeks discovery of potentially favorable information”
• finding that the district court should not have applied the doctrine of to resolve a “reasonable conflicting interpretation of a material disputed fact.”
• noting that contra proferentem “is used only as a matter of last resort, after all aids to construction have been employed but have failed to resolve the ambiguities in the written instrument”
• examining testimony offered by Mr. Schmalz and Mr. Katz, and stating “as draftsmen, they contemplated coverage for injuries which occur, rather than became manifest, during the policy period.”
• “[the CGL draftsmen] both claimed that ... they contemplated coverage for injuries which occur, rather than become manifest during the policy period.”
• New York courts apply canon of contra preferentem only “as a matter of last resort, after all aids to construction have been employed but have failed to resolve the ambiguities in the written instrument.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).