Case Name: Cenven, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation et al., Defendants. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Youngstown Cartage Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1977-02-15
Citations: 41 N.Y. 842
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cenven, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v Bethlehem Steel Corporation et al., Defendants. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Youngstown Cartage Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 842–844

Head Matter:
Cenven, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v Bethlehem Steel Corporation et al., Defendants. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Youngstown Cartage Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
Argued January 13, 1977;
decided February 15, 1977
Steven Di Joseph and John J. Bower for appellant.
William T. Ryan and John R. O’Connor for respondent.

Opinion:
Memorandum. Order affirmed, with costs.
(See Wagman v American Fid. & Cas. Co., 304 NY 490, esp 494-495; Lamberti v Anaco Equip. Corp., 16 AD2d 121, esp 123-124.) It would be unwise to proliferate fine distinctions from and exceptions to the now judicially determined language "loading and unloading", absent other qualifying language establishing a contrary meaning or ambiguity, either in an indemnification agreement or in an insurance policy. Moreover, the doctrine of stare decisis should not be departed from except under compelling circumstances (cf. People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479, 487-491; Matter of Eckart, 39 NY2d 493, 498-500; see, also, Matter of Garwitt, 41 NY2d 845).
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in a memorandum.
Order affirmed.