Main Content

Main Content

Contracts

Problem: Silverstein v St. Paul

1

Questions about the Silverstein case

2

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

3

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

4

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.

5

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

6

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