HNRK Coverage Corner
On December 30, 2019, Judge Briccetti of the SDNY issued a decision in Ruiz v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 19 CV 4399 (VB), denying an insurer’s motion to dismiss an insured’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but ruling (contrary to recent First Department case law) that the insured could not recover attorneys’ fees as consequential damages.
This case involves a claim under a homeowners insurance policy for damages sustained to a residence from burst water pipes. The complaint contained a single cause of action for “breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” As previously discussed on this blog, unlike many other states, New York law does not recognize a separate tort claim for bad faith claims handling. However, the courts—beginning with a pair of Court of Appeals decisions, Bi-Economy Market, Inc. v. Harleysville Ins. Co. of N.Y., 10 N.Y.3d 187 (2008) and Panasia Estates, Inc. v. Hudson Ins. Co., 10 N.Y.3d 200 (2008)—have permitted insureds to recover consequential damages (above the policy limits) on a theory that the insurer’s bad faith conduct violates the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Consistent with recent First Department case law taking a broad view of these claims, Judge Briccetti denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim for failure to state a claim, explaining:
Under New York law, courts do not recognize a distinct claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it is premised upon the same facts as a breach of contract claim. Consequently, a claim that defendant has breached the duty of good faith can only survive a motion to dismiss if it is based on allegations that differ from those underlying an accompanying breach of contract claim. Moreover, a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith cannot be sustained if the damages it seeks to recover are identical to those asserted in the breach of contract claim.
Accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing survives dismissal. Plaintiff alleges not only that defendant breached the policy by failing to remit appropriate coverage payments to plaintiff, but also that defendant acted with bad faith by failing properly to inspect and appraise the alleged damages. Indeed, plaintiff alleges defendant acted in bad faith by delaying, and then cancelling, an appraisal of damages caused by the first flood. Moreover, plaintiff seeks to recover “additional” damages—including remediation and living expenses—incurred as a result of defendant’s alleged dilatory claim assessments and conduct.
As an additional matter, defendant’s attempt to cabin plaintiff’s breach of contract and implied covenant claims as one and the same, because both claims appear under a single heading in the complaint, is of no moment. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss plaintiff’s implied covenant claim must be denied.
Judge Briccetti did dismiss the insured’s demand for attorneys’ fees, holding that “to the extent plaintiff classifies the attorneys’ fees he seeks as consequential damages, New York courts have . . . explicitly rejected such arguments." In support of that holding, the Court cited an earlier SDNY decision, Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr. v. Gen. Reinsurance Corp., 2016 WL 5793996, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2016), which in turn cited a pair of Second Department decisions rejecting insureds’ claims for attorneys’ fees. In a recent decision covered on this blog, however, the First Department held that, in the context of a claim for property damage and business interruption coverage, an insured could recover attorneys’ fees as a form of consequential damages. See Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. BioEnergy Development Group, LLC, 178 A.D.3d 463, 464 (1st Dep’t 2019) (“given the purpose and particular circumstances of the property damage and business interruption policies . . . it was foreseeable that excessive delay would cause defendants to incur, as alleged, tens of millions of dollars in uncovered business interruption losses and attorneys' fees necessary to recover therefor”). We will be closely following the case law in this area. This may be an issue that will have to be resolved by the New York Court of Appeals.
- Partner
Bradley Nash represents policyholders in insurance disputes and other parties in complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts in New York and across the country. Brad focuses his practice on insurance recovery for ...
Search Blog
Recent Posts
- Ohio Supreme Court Rules Computer Software Cannot Be Subject To “Physical Loss” Or “Physical Damage” Under Insured’s Property Insurance Policy
- Criminal Acts Exclusion Bars Coverage Even Though Insured Not Charged With, or Convicted of, a Crime
- Insurer Not Permitted to Recoup Defense Costs Absent Express Reservation of the Right to Do So
- Liability Insurer May Not Deny Defense Coverage Based On Extrinsic Evidence “Bound Up With the Merits of the Underlying Case”
- Second Circuit Rules That Lower-Tier Excess Policies Were Exhausted by Below-Limits Settlement with Insured
- Does Contra Proferentem Apply to the “Sophisticated Insured”?
- Sexual Misconduct Exclusion Bars Coverage for Negligence Supervision Claim
- Delaware Supreme Court Rejects “Fundamentally Identical” Standard for Interpreting Related Claims Provision
- New York Court of Appeals Rules That Disgorgement Payment to SEC Did Not Constitute an Uninsured Penalty
- “Intentional Nonperformance” of Contractual Obligations Does Not Trigger Policy’s “Willful Acts”
Popular Categories
- Insurance Coverage
- Policy Exclusions
- Duty to Defend
- Cyber Coverage
- CGL Policies
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- D&O Policies
- Business Interruption Coverage
- Excess Insurance
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- COVID-19
- Occurrence/Accident
- Indemnification and Advancement
- Damages
- Rules of Interpretation
- Related Claims
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Covered Loss
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Attorney Fees
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Priority of Coverage
- Intellectual Property
- Contracts
- E&O Policies
- Professional Malpractice
- Rescission
- Intervention/Joinder
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- November 2021
- June 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018