Panasia Estates, Inc. v. Hudson Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Panasia Estates, Inc. v. Hudson Insurance

39 A.D.3d 343, 835 N.Y.S.2d 49

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

DecidedApril 17, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 343 (Panasia Estates, Inc. v. Hudson Insurance) 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

Panasia Estates, Inc. v. Hudson Insurance, 39 A.D.3d 343, 835 N.Y.S.2d 49 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered July 24, 2006, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment only to the extent of precluding plaintiff from asserting any claims for legal fees incurred in the prosecution of this action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An insured may recover foreseeable damages, beyond the limits of its policy, for breach of a duty to investigate, bargain for and settle claims in good faith (Acquista v New York Life Ins. Co., 285 AD2d 73 [2001]). The court’s denial of defendant’s application to dismiss plaintiffs claims for consequential damages from the alleged breach of such a duty was proper. Defendant has not shown that the proffered exclusion for “consequential loss” was an applicable provision under this policy. “Consequential loss” and “consequential damages” are not synonymous, as suggested by defendant.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered July 24, 2006, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment only to the extent of precluding plaintiff from asserting any claims for legal fees incurred in the prosecution of this action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An insured may recover foreseeable damages, beyond the limits of its policy, for breach of a duty to investigate, bargain for and settle claims in good faith (Acquista v New York Life Ins. Co., 285 AD2d 73 [2001]). The court’s denial of defendant’s application to dismiss plaintiffs claims for consequential damages from the alleged breach of such a duty was proper. Defendant has not shown that the proffered exclusion for “consequential loss” was an applicable provision under this policy. “Consequential loss” and “consequential damages” are not synonymous, as suggested by defendant.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 343, 835 N.Y.S.2d 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panasia-estates-inc-v-hudson-insurance-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack