⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Real court arguments, crisp audio, with context.

Court recordings can be difficult to follow, and many suffer from poor audio quality. This podcast enhances the audio, provides a brief introduction to each case, and explains legal concepts that may be unfamiliar to some listeners.

We hope these enhancements make oral argument recordings easier to understand, more accessible, and more enjoyable to listen to.

Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube /feed.xml Open RSS Status

Tindall Corporation v. Berkley Assurance Company — 2d Cir. (Sep 23, 2026)

No. 25-1448 Argued September 23, 2026 Published October 2, 2026

Tindall Corporation seeks insurance money for correcting defective concrete beams supplied to a construction project in Philadelphia. Parts of the beams fell short of the specified insulation requirements. Tindall acknowledged problems and proposed corrective work before notifying Berkley Assurance. Berkley denied coverage, pointing to a policy condition that required its written consent before Tindall admitted liability. A federal judge ruled for the insurer on summary judgment, without a trial. Such a ruling is proper only when no genuinely disputed material fact requires a trial. Tindall will argue that acknowledging a defect is not necessarily a legally binding admission of liability, and that a jury should decide what its communications meant. Berkley will contend that the undisputed statements and repair commitments breached the condition. Richard Milone, of Milone Law Firm, will argue first for Tindall.

Tindall Corporation v. Berkley Assurance Company (No. 25-1448) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 23, 2026.

Sources
Argument audio — Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105):https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-1448.mp3
Argument date and case listing — Second Circuit:https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html
September 30, 2026 summary order, case background and counsel — Second Circuit:https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/25-1448_so.pdf
May 14, 2025 district decision, Doc. 58 — W.D.N.Y., scanned court filing mirrored by Justia:https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nywdce/1%3A2022cv00745/142775/58/
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 — rule text, Cornell LII:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56
Richard Milone — Milone Law Firm:https://www.milonelawfirm.com/richard-milone-litigator/
David McTaggart — Duane Morris:https://www.duanemorris.com/attorneys/davidtmctaggart.html
Insurance-policy ambiguity, City of New York v. Evanston — New York Appellate Division:https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_01239.htm
Equitable estoppel, Fundamental Portfolio Advisors v. Tocqueville — New York Court of Appeals:https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_04341.htm

0:00
0:00