policies were discovered in October 2001 and December 2005, respectively. Thereafter, defendants agreed to what they describe as an “interim” modified cost-sharing agreement that divided the defense costs among AMICO (64.5%), OneBeacon (21.5%), Travelers (7%), and Wausau (7%). Again, there was no provision calling for Fulton to contribute, and the agreement related only to defense costs. In December 2005 Fulton was asked to contribute to the indemnity costs of the Asbestos Claims. Fulton has refused to pay such costs on a regular basis but admittedly contributed $18,200 toward a settlement in December 2005. III. DISCUSSION Jurisdiction in this case is based on the diversity of the parties, who agree that New York law is controlling. See Fulton Boiler Works, Inc., 2010 WL 1257943, at *5 (<HOLDING>). The issues presented in the parties’ motions
holding the new york state wiretap statute controlling on this issue holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding that new york law applies to this matter holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action