Problem: Silverstein v St. Paul | Charles Fried | June 01, 2017


This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at Thank you.

Problem: Silverstein v St. Paul

Questions about the Silverstein case

1. Was the St. Paul’s segment of the case correctly decided?

2. Was the Wilprop form part of the contract between Silverstein and St. Paul? What was the contract  and when was it formed?

3. Why was Silverstein not correct that the custom and usage,  as admitted by St. Paul’s own agents, that subsidiary insurers like St. Paul agree to “follow the form” of the lead insurer, which in this case was Travelers; and therefore the term “occurrence” remained undefined, as Travelers insisted for its own coverage and in its own forms?   In this connection, think again  about Texaco-Pennzoil, Lafayette Place Associates, TIAA-CREF (p.2 fn 9) of the LPA opinion.

4. What would be the relevance of the Joseph Martin Delicatessen case?  This was, after all, a question New York law?

5. What is the relevance of St. Paul’s agent’s admission that she had never read Wilprop prior to binding the coverage?


Text Information

June 01, 2017

Author Stats

Charles Fried

Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large