HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEM. CO., INC. v. Canron, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
27 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Schumacher v. Richards Shear Co. (N.Y. 1983)
- Carlock v. Pillsbury Co. (D. Minn. 1989)
- Maria v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1st Cir. 1986)
- MacMillan Bloedel Limited and MacMillan Bloedel, Inc. v. The Flintkote Company (5th Cir. 1985)
- Morris Avenue Corp. v. Daniel Realty Corp. (Ala. 1983)
- Bernard v. Kee Mfg. Co., Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
- Ester Lelchook v. Société Générale de Banque au Liban SAL (N.Y. 2024)
- Steffens v. Wishner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Barth v. Wishner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Aguilar v. Wishner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Turner v. Pride & Servs. El. Co., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
- Shea v. Salvation Army (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Long Island Air Conditioning, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Meadows v. Amsted Industries, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Ramsaywack v. Louis Allis Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- GG Managers, Inc. v. Fidata Trust Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Flecha v. Seybold Machine Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Weitzman v. Eagle-Picher Industries (New York Supreme Court 1989)
- Monroe v. Interlock Steel Co. (New York Supreme Court 1985)
- Radziul v. Hooper, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1984)
- Ullenbruch v. P & H Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Schumacher v. Richards Shear Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Grant-Howard Associates v. General Housewares Corp. (New York Supreme Court 1982)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs to respondent Canron, Inc., against appellants.
Rusciano Construction Corp., plaintiffs subrogor, purchased pipes from the Warren Pipe & Foundry Division of Shahmoon Industries, Inc., under a 1968 purchase order which set forth a provision limiting any action by either party for breach of the acknowledgment (expressing their complete agreement) to within 13 months after a cause of action accrued. Certain pipe, the subject of this suit, was installed by Rusciano in a Yonkers street on or about January 6, 1970 and, of necessity, must have been delivered prior to that time. That pipe ruptured on October 21, 1971. On April 24, 1970, in the interval between installation and break, defendant Canron, Inc., acquired from defendant Shahmoon Industries, Inc., certain but not all of the assets of the Warren Pipe & Foundry Division.
*825 This action for damages arising from the pipe rupture, allegedly "caused by the negligence of the defendants, or either of them, and breach of warranty for fitness and use”, was commenced on August 17, 1973. Special Term determined that, regardless of whether the breach of warranty occurred upon delivery of the pipe or when it burst, the time limitation applied and any action for such a breach was barred. The complaint was viewed as combining two causes of action and it was stated that Shahmoon was the manufacturer and seller of the pipe which broke open and that the later acquisition by Canron of some of the physical assets of Shahmoon does not transfer negligence liability. Plaintiffs complaint was dismissed with leave to serve an amended complaint stating a cause of action in negligence alone against only defendant Shahmoon. The Appellate Division affirmed for the reasons stated by Special Term.
It is noted, inter alia, that the acquisition agreement between Shahmoon and Canron reveals no express or implied assumption of tort liability by Canron, there was no consolidation or merger of the seller and purchaser, the purchasing corporation was not a mere continuation of the selling corporation and there has been no proof or allegation of fraud in the acquisition transaction. Without staking out the perimeters of tort liability for a successor entity and assuming that an underlying case of such liability has been made out in favor of plaintiff, none of the bases usually urged for responsibility by the successor are present here.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
Order affirmed, with costs to defendant-respondent Canron, Inc., against appellants in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the affirmative.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.