Granato v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Decision Date25 June 1979
Citation70 A.D.2d 948,418 N.Y.S.2d 108
PartiesEvelyn GRANATO et al., Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent; et al., Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Malerba, Abruzzo, Clancy, Downes & Frankel, Huntington (Robert F. Malerba, Huntington, of counsel), for appellants.

Rivkin, Leff & Sherman, Garden City (John F. Morrison, Garden City, of counsel), for respondent.

Before SUOZZI, J. P., and LAZER, GULOTTA, SHAPIRO and COHALAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover compensatory and punitive damages based upon, Inter alia, an alleged violation of a fiduciary obligation, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered December 5, 1977 which granted defendant Allstate Insurance Company's motion to dismiss the complaint as to it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. (a), pars. 5 and 7).

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Any damages caused by delay were on the whole preventable. Section 675 of the Insurance Law provided plaintiffs with a quick and easy method to resolve any dispute with respect to first-party benefits. The insurance company cannot be held liable for plaintiffs' failure to utilize this remedy until 10 months after their benefits had been terminated.

Plaintiffs' cause of action for punitive damages is also defective. In order to prove an action for punitive damages against an insurance company, it is necessary to show that "in its dealings with the general public, (the insurance company) had engaged in a fraudulent scheme evincing such 'a high degree of moral turpitude and * * * such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations' (Walker v. Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401, 405, 223 N.Y.S.2d 488, 179 N.E.2d 497)." (Buttignol Constr. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 22 A.D.2d 689, 253 N.Y.S.2d 172, affd., 17 N.Y.2d 476, 266 N.Y.S.2d 982, 214 N.E.2d 162; MSR Assoc. v. Consolidated Mut. Ins. Co., 58 A.D.2d 858, 396 N.Y.S.2d 684; Hubbell v. Trans World Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., App.Div., --- N.Y.S.2d --- (decided herewith)). Plaintiffs' cause of action does not suggest that type of scheme and is therefore insupportable.

SUOZZI, J. P., and GULOTTA, SHAPIRO and COHALAN, JJ., concur.

LAZER, J., concurs in the affirmance of the judgment, with the following memorandum:

While I concur, I do so on constraint of MSR Assoc. v. Consolidated Mut. Ins. Co., 58 A.D.2d 858, 396 N.Y.S.2d 684 and Buttignol Constr. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 22 A.D.2d 689, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • DiBlasi v. Aetna Life and Cas. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 22 Mayo 1989
    ...as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations' " ', plaintiff is not entitled to seek punitive damage (Granato v Allstate Ins. Co., 70 AD2d 948, 949, [lv. denied 48 N.Y.2d 610, 425 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 401 N.E.2d 221, quoting from, Walker v. Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401, 405, 223 N.Y.S.2d 48......
  • Fleming v. Allstate Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 10 Diciembre 1984
    ...indifference to civil obligations" (Walker v. Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401, 405, 223 N.Y.S.2d 488, 179 N.E.2d 497; Granato v. Allstate Ins. Co., 70 A.D.2d 948, 949, 418 N.Y.S.2d 108, mot. for lv. to app. den. 48 N.Y.2d 610, 425 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 401 N.E.2d 221; see, also, Reifenstein v. Allstate Ins......
  • Raphael v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 4 Septiembre 1990
    ...264 (App.Div.1980). See, e.g., Cook v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 469 N.Y.S.2d 4, 97 A.D.2d 731 (App.Div.1983); Granato v. Allstate Ins. Co., 418 N.Y.S.2d 108, 70 A.D.2d 948 (App.Div.), appeal denied, 48 N.Y.2d 610, 425 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 401 N.E.2d 221 The mere breach of a contract of insurance d......
  • Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Chock Full O'Nuts Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 6 Mayo 1982
    ...949 ). Plaintiffs' cause of action does not suggest that type of scheme and is therefore insupportable." (Granato v. Allstate Ins. Co., 70 A.D.2d 948, 949, 418 N.Y.S.2d 108.) In Granato, one justice concurred on constraint, suggesting that the requirement for showing of fraud against the ge......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT