Griffith v. Blue Shield of Western New York Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Griffith v. Blue Shield of Western New York Inc.

28 A.D.2d 808, 281 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3921

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.2d 808 (Griffith v. Blue Shield of Western New York Inc.) 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

Griffith v. Blue Shield of Western New York Inc., 28 A.D.2d 808, 281 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: The complaint states a legally sufficient cause of [809]*809action for money damages over which the City Court of Buffalo has jurisdiction. This complaint should not have been dismissed as a matter of law. It appears that defendant's rejection of the plaintiff’s claim, based on its own interpretation of its contract of insurance, was arbitrary and unreasonable. An interpretation such as this, in order to be sustained, must have been reasonable, fair and in good faith. (Boston Rd. Shopping Center v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn., 13 A D 2d 106; Bruce & Co. v. Simpson & Co., 40 Misc 2d 501; Cowden v. Broderick & Calvert, 108 S. W. 2d 562 [Tex. Civ. App.], affd. 131 Tex. 434.) The ultimate interpretation of the contract is for the court, and the questions of fact involved should be developed and determined at trial. (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie County Court reversing order of Buffalo City Court, and dismissing complaint in action on insurance contract.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

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

Memorandum: The complaint states a legally sufficient cause of [809]*809action for money damages over which the City Court of Buffalo has jurisdiction. This complaint should not have been dismissed as a matter of law. It appears that defendant's rejection of the plaintiff’s claim, based on its own interpretation of its contract of insurance, was arbitrary and unreasonable. An interpretation such as this, in order to be sustained, must have been reasonable, fair and in good faith. (Boston Rd. Shopping Center v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn., 13 A D 2d 106; Bruce & Co. v. Simpson & Co., 40 Misc 2d 501; Cowden v. Broderick & Calvert, 108 S. W. 2d 562 [Tex. Civ. App.], affd. 131 Tex. 434.) The ultimate interpretation of the contract is for the court, and the questions of fact involved should be developed and determined at trial. (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie County Court reversing order of Buffalo City Court, and dismissing complaint in action on insurance contract.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.2d 808, 281 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-v-blue-shield-of-western-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack