Gardner-Denver Co. v. Dic-Underhill Construction Co.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
416 F. Supp. 934 (1976)
- Written by Sheryl McGrath, JD
Facts
Gardner-Denver Co. (plaintiff) rented an air compressor to the Dic-Underhill Construction Co. (Dic-Underhill) (defendant) for construction of New York’s World Trade Center. The air compressor was stolen during construction in August 1973. The New York Port Authority (the Port Authority) (defendant) owned the World Trade Center. The Port Authority was insured by American Home Assurance Co. (American Home). The American Home insurance contract covered certain losses by the Port Authority’s building contractors, including Dic-Underhill. On or shortly after the date the air compressor was stolen in August 1973, Dic-Underhill notified American Home of the theft. Nearly two years later, in March 1975, American Home’s insurance adjuster informed Dic-Underhill that the American Home contract did not cover the theft. The following month, in April 1975, Dic-Underhill notified its own insurance company, St. Paul, of the theft. The St. Paul insurance contract stated that Dic-Underhill must notify St. Paul of a loss as soon as practicable. St. Paul declined to cover the theft. Gardner-Denver Co. sued Dic-Underhill and the Port Authority for the loss of the air compressor. St. Paul sought summary judgment on the ground that Dic-Underhill and subrogee the Port Authority failed to comply with the notice requirement in the St. Paul insurance contract.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Motley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 782,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
