Structural Proces v. Hartford Steam Boiler

1 Citing case

  1. Cont'l Ref. Co. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co.

    350 F. Supp. 3d 601 (E.D. Ky. 2018)   Cited 10 times
    Granting summary judgment when a party's Rule 36 admission "alone [was] conclusive and dispositive of the issue"

    Two concluding points. Structural Processing Corp. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. , 23 Misc.3d 131(A), 885 N.Y.S.2d 713, No. 2008-971NC, 2009 WL 995790 (Sup. Ct. App. Term Apr. 7, 2009) (table), which Continental cites, DE # 33, at 15-16, is inapposite (in addition to being unpublished and nonbinding). There, the "cause of the loss at issue ha[d] not been established with certainty," and there was a dispute whether a "backfire" counted as an "explosion" under a policy exclusion, leading the court to conclude that summary judgment was inappropriate.