Browdy v. State-Wide Ins. Co., STATE-WIDE

• Decision Date: 19 April 1968
• Docket Number: STATE-WIDE
• Citation: 56 Misc.2d 610,289 N.Y.S.2d 711
• Parties: Richard BROWDY, an infant over the age of 14 years, by his father and guardian ad litem, Robert Browdy and Robert Browdy, individually, Plaintiffs, v.INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 711

289 N.Y.S.2d 711

56 Misc.2d 610

Richard BROWDY, an infant over the age of 14 years, by his father and guardian ad litem, Robert Browdy and Robert Browdy, individually, Plaintiffs, v. STATE-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County, Part I.

April 19, 1968.

[56 Misc.2d 611] Bennett Oppenheimer, Far Rockaway, for plaintiffs.

Gordich & Cohen, Jamaica, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

J. IRWIN SHAPIRO, Justice.

This is a motion by the defendant 'for an Order dismissing the Second. Third and Sixth causes of action alleged in the Complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) (7) on the grounds that said alleged Second, Third and Sixth causes of action in the Complaint fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action'.

The infant plaintiff in this case was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by defendant's assured and thereafter recovered a judgment on his cause of action for personal injuries. His father, the other plaintiff in this case, also recovered a judgment for his loss of services. Both judgments remain unsatisfied. The judgments are in excess of the face amount of the insurance policy. Cause of action No. 2 is by the infant plaintiff to recover from the defendant the full amount of his judgment on the ground that the defendant, by reason of its tortious conduct and its breach of the terms of its insurance agreement with its assured, failed to settle the infant's personal injury action at an amount less than the coverage provided for in the insured's policy even though the infant plaintiff was willing to accept such a sum. Causes of action Nos. 3 and 6 are to recover punitive and exemplary damages arising out of the aforementioned cause of action. ¹ For the purposes of this opinion, only cause of action No. 2 will be considered, for the determination thereof will be dispositive of the entire motion.

In essence, the second cause of action alleges that the defendant exercised bad faith and was guilty of negligence in its preparation, investigation and handling of the personal injury litigation; that the defendant considered its own interests in handling the litigation to the exclusion of the interests of its assured, and wrongfully breached the terms of the policy of insurance issued by it to its assured by failing to settle the action although it could have done so within the policy limits; and that it breached its duty toward the plaintiff as a quasi-trustee for him, since it was an insurance carrier licensed to do business in this State.

I have been unable to find any case which four-square sustains a cause of action such as is here alleged. In Atlantic City v. American Casualty Insurance Company, D.C., 254 F.Supp. 396, the complaint alleged that a liability insurance policy existed between the defendant, the insurer, and Atlantic City, the insured, with policy limits of $100,000. The complaint further alleged that Atlantic City had made repeated demands upon the insurer to negotiate settlement of the suit within the limits of the policy but that it refused to do so in good faith and thereby breached its duty to the insured. The plaintiffs in that action were both the plaintiff in the original personal injury action and Atlantic City, the insured. Upon the trial in the personal injury action, the plaintiff recovered a judgment for $600,000 but the insurance policy limits were $100,000, as aforesaid. Prior to the personal injury trial, the injured party and Altantic City, the insured, requested the insurer to settle the lawsuit for $350,000 (p. 397) 'of which the policy limit' of $100,000 'was to be contributed voluntarily, by the Insurer' and $250,000 by the insured. The defendant insurance company rejected the proposal of settlement. Thereupon Atlantic City entered into an agreement with the injured plaintiff 'whereby the City settled its liability with him for $250,000.00, and in consideration therefor partially assigned to him a share in any cause of action it might have against the Insurer to recover the excess of any judgment over the policy limits.'

The insurer moved to dismiss the complaint of Caporossi, the injured plaintiff who had recovered the judgment in the personal injury action. In making its motion, the defendant insurance company alleged (p, 398) 'that the complaint alleges no contractual rights with, or duty owed to, Caporossi which were breached, nor any damages proximately resulting from any such breach.' In opposing the motion to dismiss, Caporossi claimed to be a proper party 'as a judgment creditor of the Insured as well as a 'real party in interest' by virtue of his status as an assignee of the Insured.'

It is apparent from the recitation of the facts as above set forth, that the cause of action could properly have been sustained simply on the theory that by virtue of the assignment to him, Caporossi was a proper party plaintiff. Some of the language, however, is consistent with a holding that Caporossi could have maintained a cause of action against the insurance company to recover the excess over the policy limits, even in the absence of an assignment, upon the ground that the policy was issued by the insurance company pursuant to rights granted to it by statute; that therefore its issuance was not wholly a private matter between the insurer and the insured; and that by reason of such facts, 'upon the happening of an accident the injured third party acquired an interest in the policy that cannot be foreclosed by litigation or agreement between insurer and insured alone. (In re Estate of Gardinier, 40 N.J. 261, 265, 191 A.2d 294.)'

The United States District Judge also said (p. 398): 'Thus, Caporossi having such an interest arising under the policy can Independently seek redress against the Insurer for its alleged breach of the terms of such policy where the Insurer fails to exercise good faith in an effort to negotiate a settlement within the policy limits.' (Emphasis supplied.) In thus holding, the court sought to distinguish Chittick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., D.C., 170 F.Supp. 276, which held that a judgment creditor of an assured had No standing to sue the insurer directly for an amount in excess of the insurance coverage, on the ground that since in that case the insured was not joined in the action (p. 399) 'there would be no basis for determining the question of excess in the assured's absence from the suit, he not being a party thereto.' It is not necessary for present purposes to determine whether the distinction thus made is sound, for I hold that in New York there is no right of recovery by an injured plaintiff in a direct action against an insurance company for an amount in excess of the insured's policy, regardless of whether the insurance company acted negligently or in bad faith or fraudulently in failing to settle the personal injury litigation in advance of trial.

In Auerbach v. Maryland Casualty Co., 236 N.Y. 247, 140 N.E. 577, 28 A.L.R. 1294, in an action by an Insured to recover the difference in the amount it was forced to pay and the amount it would have paid had settlement been effected by the insurance company, the complaint was held insufficient. There the plaintiff, the insured, alleged in his complaint that the case could have been settled for $6,500; that the insurance company was advised of that fact; that it agreed that the $6,500 was a fair settlement figure but that it refused to pay more than $3,500 toward the settlement even though its policy was in the sum of $5,000. The complaint further alleged that the insured had offered to pay $1,500 toward the $6,500 settlement, but insisted that the insurance company should pay the full amount of its liability under the policy, to wit, the sum of $5,000, and that the insurance company declined to do so and insisted upon a trial. The complaint further alleged that both actions were tried and that a verdict was rendered in favor of the injured plaintiff for $20,000 and in favor of her husband in the sum of $500 and that the insurance company thereafter paid the face amount of its liability under the insurance policy and that the plaintiffs were compelled to pay the difference.

Special Term dismissed the complaint upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The Appellate Division reversed Special Term, but the Court of Appeals said: 'The judgment of the Appellate Division must be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed' because 'The complaint does not state a cause of action.' Said the Court of Appeals:

'There is nothing in the policy by which the insurance company obligated itself to settle, if an opportunity presented itself. It was given the option to settle, if it saw fit to do so, or to try the action, as it preferred. It, however, was under no legal obligation, either express or implied, to compromise or settle the claims prior to the trial. The plaintiffs, when they accepted the policy, did so with full knowledge of the fact, if an action were brought, that they surrendered to the insurance company absolute, full and complete control of it, including the settlement or trial. (Citing cases.) They also knew there was no provision in the policy which obligated the insurance company to pay any amount whatever prior to the rendition of a judgment. * * *

It is true the insurance company realized, prior to the trial, that the terms under which a settlement could be had were favorable ones and that the same ought to be accepted. It so advised the plaintiffs in writing. The advice thus given imposed upon it no legal obligation to make the settlement. It knew that its liability was limited to $5,000, and while it offered to pay $3,500 towards a settlement, that did not impose upon it the obligation to pay the full amount of the policy prior to the trial. The probability that judgment much larger than $6,500 would be recovered was as well known to the plaintiffs as to the...