Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance v. Nassau Insurance

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance v. Nassau Insurance

99 Misc. 2d 1018, 417 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1979 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2379

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 25, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 99 Misc. 2d 1018 (Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance v. Nassau Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance v. Nassau Insurance, 99 Misc. 2d 1018, 417 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1979 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered September 29, 1978 (Cahn, J.), insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs to defendant.

Our appellate courts have been uniformly reluctant to permit the recovery of punitive damages by an insured against his insurer (Gordon v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 30 NY2d 427; Cohen v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 65 AD2d 71). In this action, it is not defendant’s insureds who are questioning its activities with respect to the settlement of third-party claims. Rather, it is other insurers, suing as subrogees of adverse property damage claimants, who are asserting that defendant entered into a course of conduct to issue false disclaimers under policies with its insureds, thus compelling plaintiffs to resort to unnecessary (in their view) litigation. Even assuming the truth of plaintiffs’ allegations, defendant’s punishment is, in this context, more properly within the province and jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Insurance than through an award of punitive damages to competing insurance companies (see Frizzy Hairstylists v Eagle Star Ins. Co., 93 Misc 2d 59). Section 40-d of the Insurance Law prohibits insurers from repeatedly engaging in unfair claims settlement practices; if defendant has willfully violated this section, appropriate monetary penalties may be imposed (Insurance Law, § 40-d, subd 3; § 5). One of the primary purposes of punitive damages is to deter the wrongdoer, and others similarly situated, from indulging in like conduct in the future (Walker v Sheldon, 10 NY2d 401, 404). The statute (§ 40-d) performs this same disciplinary function and obviates the necessity for the maintenance of causes of action for punitive damages in these circumstances (Cohen v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 65 AD2d 71, 79, supra).

Concur: Hughes, Riccobono and Asch, JJ.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered September 29, 1978 (Cahn, J.), insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs to defendant.

Our appellate courts have been uniformly reluctant to permit the recovery of punitive damages by an insured against his insurer (Gordon v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 30 NY2d 427; Cohen v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 65 AD2d 71). In this action, it is not defendant’s insureds who are questioning its activities with respect to the settlement of third-party claims. Rather, it is other insurers, suing as subrogees of adverse property damage claimants, who are asserting that defendant entered into a course of conduct to issue false disclaimers under policies with its insureds, thus compelling plaintiffs to resort to unnecessary (in their view) litigation. Even assuming the truth of plaintiffs’ allegations, defendant’s punishment is, in this context, more properly within the province and jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Insurance than through an award of punitive damages to competing insurance companies (see Frizzy Hairstylists v Eagle Star Ins. Co., 93 Misc 2d 59). Section 40-d of the Insurance Law prohibits insurers from repeatedly engaging in unfair claims settlement practices; if defendant has willfully violated this section, appropriate monetary penalties may be imposed (Insurance Law, § 40-d, subd 3; § 5). One of the primary purposes of punitive damages is to deter the wrongdoer, and others similarly situated, from indulging in like conduct in the future (Walker v Sheldon, 10 NY2d 401, 404). The statute (§ 40-d) performs this same disciplinary function and obviates the necessity for the maintenance of causes of action for punitive damages in these circumstances (Cohen v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 65 AD2d 71, 79, supra).

Concur: Hughes, Riccobono and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 Misc. 2d 1018, 417 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1979 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cosmopolitan-mutual-insurance-v-nassau-insurance-nyappterm-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack