Camelot Coach Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

238 A.D.2d 369, 657 N.Y.S.2d 335
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 14, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 369 (Camelot Coach Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Camelot Coach Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 238 A.D.2d 369, 657 N.Y.S.2d 335 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—In two consolidated actions to recover damages based upon breach of an insurance contract, the defendant in both actions appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), entered March 8, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs in Action Nos. 1 and 2 and against it in the principal sum of $238,000, as compensatory damages, and in the principal sum of $462,000, as punitive damages. The appeal from the judgment brings up for review an order of the same court (Wood, J.), entered December 15, 1995, which denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiffs punitive damages; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The award of punitive damages, an "extraordinary remedy” (Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 NY2d 603, 613), cannot stand because the plaintiffs failed to present " 'sufficient evidentiary allegations of ultimate facts of a fraudulent and deceitful scheme in dealing with the general public [or] to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations’ ” (Ahmadi v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 204 AD2d 374, 375, quoting Valis v Allstate Ins. Co., 132 AD2d 658, 658-659; see also, New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308; Bread Chalet v Royal Ins. Co., 224 AD2d 650; Gentile v Continental Am. Life Ins. Co., 215 AD2d 626).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Halali v. Evanston Insurance
8 A.D.3d 434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
238 A.D.2d 369, 657 N.Y.S.2d 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camelot-coach-corp-v-united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-nyappdiv-1997.