M. S. R. Associates Ltd. v. Consolidated Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 July 1977 |
| Citation | 58 A.D.2d 858,396 N.Y.S.2d 684 |
| Parties | M. S. R. ASSOCIATES LTD., Respondent, v. CONSOLIDATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Gwertzman, Nagelberg & Pfeffer, New York City (Milton B. Pfeffer, New York City, and Ellen Lefkowitz, Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellants.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and SHAPIRO, HAWKINS and SUOZZI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action inter alia on a policy of fire insurance, the defendant insurers appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 16, 1976, which denied their motion to strike the second cause of action of the complaint, which seeks the recovery of $1,000,000 as punitive damages.
Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted.
Plaintiff instituted suit to recover damages under a policy of fire insurance issued by the defendants. The fire policy was in the form approved by the New York State Department of Insurance.
In a second and separate cause of action plaintiff seeks punitive damages because the "insurance policy is intentionally and maliciously weighted against the assured * * * (and) (r)efusal on the part of the defendants to pay this or a similar claim is unconscionable to plaintiff and prejudicial to society." This second cause of action should have been dismissed.
Initially, it must be noted that a demand for punitive damages does not amount to a separate cause of action for pleading purposes (Knibbs v. Wagner, 14 A.D.2d 987, 222 N.Y.S.2d 469; Dworski v. Empire Discount Corp., 46 Misc.2d 844, 260 N.Y.S.2d 938). Of more crucial significance in this case is the fact that plaintiff's allegations, as a matter of law, do not support an award of punitive damages. Plaintiff's second cause of action is predicated upon a breach of a private contract, i. e., a policy of fire insurance, the form of which was approved by the appropriate regulatory agency of New York State; defendants' answer is based upon allegations which, if proven, have always been legally recognized as valid defenses.
The Court of Appeals, in Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 354, 358, 386 N.Y.S.2d 831, 833, 353 N.E.2d 793, 795, recently restated the general principle that "(i)t has always been held that punitive damages are not available for mere breach of contract, for in such a case only a private wrong, and not a public right, is involved". Even in cases of fraud, punitive damages may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Eli Haddad Corp.
... ... 94 on the calendar of November 8, 1982, are consolidated and decided herein ... Plaintiff and ... Associates v. Consolidated Mut. Ins. Co., 58 A.D.2d 858, ... Page ... ...
-
Einhorn v. Seeley
...Ward Foods, 70 A.D.2d 483, 421 N.Y.S.2d 223; Goldberg v. New York Times, 66 A.D.2d 718, 411 N.Y.S.2d 295; M.S.R. Assoc. v. Consolidated Mut. Ins. Co., 58 A.D.2d 858, 396 N.Y.S.2d 684). Similarly deficient is the third cause of action by Kenneth Einhorn to recover for loss of "society, compa......
-
Samovar of Russia Jewelry Antique Corp. v. Generali the General Ins. Co. of Trieste and Venice
...363; Waterview Catering Corp. v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 79 A.D.2d 973, 434 N.Y.S.2d 456; M.S.R. Assoc. v. Consolidated Mut. Ins. Co., 58 A.D.2d 858, 396 N.Y.S.2d 684). Greenspan v. Commercial Ins. Co. of Newark, 57 A.D.2d 387, 395 N.Y.S.2d 519, a 1977 Third Department opini......
-
Durham Industries, Inc. v. North River Ins. Co., s. 201
...v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n, 60 A.D.2d 807, 400 N.Y.S.2d 824 (1978); M.S.R. Associates Ltd. v. Consolidated Mutual Insurance Co., 58 A.D.2d 858, 396 N.Y.S.2d 684 (1977); Buttignol Construction Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 22 A.D.2d 689, 253 N.Y.S.2d 172 (1964), aff'd......