Mauro v. Niemann Agency, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 March 2003 |
| Parties | CHARLES MAURO, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>NIEMANN AGENCY, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs, and the complaint is dismissed.
The complaint alleges that the defendant, an insurance broker, breached its contract with the plaintiff's father and committed negligence in failing to procure the maximum uninsured and supplementary uninsured motorist (hereinafter SUM) coverage that would have covered the injuries he sustained in an accident on July 12, 1997, while he was driving his father's car. The plaintiff's father procured SUM coverage from the defendant continuously from 1989 until the date of the accident. The plaintiff was an "insured" as defined in paragraph I (a) (2) (i) of the SUM endorsement.
After issue was joined, the defendant moved for summary judgment and for dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and as time-barred (see CPLR 3212, 3211 [a] [7], [5]). The Supreme Court denied the motion with leave to renew after the completion of discovery.
The defendant sustained its burden of establishing prima facie that both the breach of contract, if any, and the negligence claims, if any, are time-barred (see Savarese v Shatz, 273 AD2d 219, 220 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiff raised no triable issue that would change the measurement of the applicable periods of limitations.
The statute of limitations for a breach of contract is six years (see CPLR 213 [2]), and for a negligence claim is three years (see CPLR 214 [4]). The breach of contract claim accrued in 1989 when the defendant failed to perform its alleged undertaking with the plaintiff's father to obtain the highest amount of SUM coverage (see Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal, 81 NY2d 399, 402 [1993]; Hudson Envelope Corp. v Klausner, 249 AD2d 31, 32 [1998]). This action was commenced on June 29, 2000, more than six years after the defendant allegedly breached its contract.
Under the circumstances of this case as pleaded in the complaint, the plaintiff's negligence claim also accrued in 1989 because it alleges that as a proximate result of the defendant's failure to secure SUM coverage to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cunningham v. Insurance Co. of North America
...an insurance broker accrue[] when the wrongdoing occurs and not when the wrongdoing is discovered"); Mauro v. Niemann Agency, 303 A.D.2d 468, 468, 756 N.Y.S.2d 611 (App.Div.2003); Morse Diesel Int'l v. CNA Ins. Cos., 272 A.D.2d 455, 707 N.Y.S.2d 499 (App.Div.2000). However, at least two App......
-
Fed. Ins. Co. v. Distinguished Properties Umbrella Managers Inc.
...as is the case for Counts I (negligence) and II (negligent misrepresentation). See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(4); Mauro v. Niemann Agency, Inc., 303 A.D.2d 468, 756 N.Y.S.2d 611, 612 (2003). 1 As a general rule, “[a] tort claim accrues as soon as the claim becomes enforceable, i.e., when all eleme......
-
Bonded Waterproofing Serv. Inc. v. Anderson–bernard Agency Inc.
...result ( see Atlantic Balloon & Novelty Corp. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 920, 922, 880 N.Y.S.2d 112; Mauro v. Niemann Agency, 303 A.D.2d 468, 756 N.Y.S.2d 611), they should no longer be followed. The remaining contention of A–B and Bernard regarding the cause of action allegi......
-
H.P.S. Mgmt. Co. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Co., Index No: 019847-10
...was procured. Atlantic Balloon& Novelty Corp v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 920 (2d Dept. 2009); Mauro v. Niemann Agency, Inc., 303 A.D.2d 468 (2d Dept. 2003). In an action for legal malpractice, the plaintiff must allege that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonab......