United States & Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Copfer

400 N.E.2d 298, 48 N.Y.2d 871, 424 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2498
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 29, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 400 N.E.2d 298 (United States & Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Copfer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States & Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Copfer, 400 N.E.2d 298, 48 N.Y.2d 871, 424 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2498 (N.Y. 1979).

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in its memorandum decision.

We agree that the insurer breached its contractual duty to defend and indemnify the insured and thus may be held liable for the expenses the insured incurred in providing for his own defense (International Paper Co. v Continental Cas. Co., 35 NY2d 322). Additionally, the insurer may be required to reimburse the insured, up to the coverage limits in the insurance policy, for any judgment the insured is in turn required to pay as a result of the negligence action against him. The insured’s claim for additional damages resulting from the insurer’s alleged "bad faith” must be rejected, however, since there was no showing whatsoever that the insured lost an actual opportunity to settle the negligence claim against him within the coverage limits of his policy by reason of the insurer’s purported "bad faith” (see St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co. v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 43 NY2d 977; Kulak v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 40 NY2d 140; cf. Decker v Amalgamated Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 35 NY2d 950). The insured’s speculations that a satisfactory settlement might have ensued had the insurer sought out the injured party and attempted to negotiate on behalf of its insured are simply not sufficient to support a claim against the insurer for what are essentially excess liability damages (see Gordon v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 30 NY2d 427). Accordingly, we hold that the Appellate Division acted properly in granting summary judgment to the insurer on this claim. v

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

Related

Schlusselberg v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
2022 NY Slip Op 03539 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v. New York Schs. Ins. Reciprocal
2021 NY Slip Op 06341 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
United Parcel Service v. Lexington Insurance Group
983 F. Supp. 2d 258 (S.D. New York, 2013)
CBLPath, Inc. v. Lexington Insurance
73 A.D.3d 829 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Vecchione v. Amica Mutual Insurance
274 A.D.2d 576 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Redcross v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
260 A.D.2d 908 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
U.S. Underwriters Insurance v. TNP Trucking Inc.
44 F. Supp. 2d 489 (E.D. New York, 1999)
U.S. Underwriters Insurance v. Weatherization, Inc.
21 F. Supp. 2d 318 (S.D. New York, 1998)
STV Group, Inc. v. American Continental Properties, Inc.
234 A.D.2d 50 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Cappelletti v. Unigard Insurance
222 A.D.2d 1029 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Soto v. State Farm Insurance
635 N.E.2d 1222 (New York Court of Appeals, 1994)
Pavia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
626 N.E.2d 24 (New York Court of Appeals, 1993)
Cunniff v. Westfield, Inc.
829 F. Supp. 55 (E.D. New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
400 N.E.2d 298, 48 N.Y.2d 871, 424 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-v-copfer-ny-1979.