Parks v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parks v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance

105 A.D.2d 1068, 482 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21148

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 1068 (Parks v. Cambridge Mutual Fire 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

Parks v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance, 105 A.D.2d 1068, 482 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Punitive damages are not recoverable in an action against an insurance company based upon a claim of wrongful and bad-faith refusal to pay under the terms of a policy of fire insurance. Allegations of breach of an insurance contract, even a breach committed willfully and without justification, are insufficient to authorize such recovery {TJniland Dev. Co. v Home Ins. Co., 97 AD2d 973; Reifenstein v Allstate Ins. Co., 92 AD2d 715). Since plaintiffs’ action is grounded upon private breach of contract and does not seek to vindicate a public right or deter morally culpable conduct, the second cause of action should be dismissed {Halpin v Prudential Ins. Co., 48 NY2d 906, 907; LTS Contrs. v Hartford Ins. Co., 99 AD2d 644, 645). Contrary to Special Term’s finding, Gordon v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (30 NY2d 427, cert den 410 US 931) and similar cases do not hold otherwise {Halpin v Prudential Ins. Co., supra, p 907). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Balio, J. — summary judgment, discovery.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Punitive damages are not recoverable in an action against an insurance company based upon a claim of wrongful and bad-faith refusal to pay under the terms of a policy of fire insurance. Allegations of breach of an insurance contract, even a breach committed willfully and without justification, are insufficient to authorize such recovery {TJniland Dev. Co. v Home Ins. Co., 97 AD2d 973; Reifenstein v Allstate Ins. Co., 92 AD2d 715). Since plaintiffs’ action is grounded upon private breach of contract and does not seek to vindicate a public right or deter morally culpable conduct, the second cause of action should be dismissed {Halpin v Prudential Ins. Co., 48 NY2d 906, 907; LTS Contrs. v Hartford Ins. Co., 99 AD2d 644, 645). Contrary to Special Term’s finding, Gordon v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (30 NY2d 427, cert den 410 US 931) and similar cases do not hold otherwise {Halpin v Prudential Ins. Co., supra, p 907). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Balio, J. — summary judgment, discovery.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 1068, 482 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parks-v-cambridge-mutual-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack