Preview
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
OREST BABCHUK,
Index No.:
Plaintiff,
SUMMONS
-against-
THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AON
NATIONAL FLOOD SERVICES, and KAH INSURANCE
BROKERAGE INC.
Defendant(s).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
To the above-named Defendants(s),
You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of
your answer, or, ifthe complaint is not served withthis summons, to serve a notice of
appearance, on the Plaintiffs attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete ifthis summons is
not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to
appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the
complaint.
The basis of venue is the Plaintiff's former residence, which is location of the insured
property.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 6, 2018
Yours, etc.,
By:
Iviichael J.S. Pontone, E .
'
THE LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL J.S. PONTONE, ESQ., P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
OREST BABCHUK
532 Union Street
Brooklyn, NY 11215
917-648-8784
1 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018
TO: The Hartford Fire Insurance Company
One Hartford Plaza
Hartford, CT 06155
Aon National Flood Services
7701 College Boulevard
Overland Park, KS 66210
Kah Insurance Brokerage Inc.
510 Broadhollow Rd 4 210
Melville, NY 11747
2 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
OREST BABCHUK,
Index No.:
Plaintiff,
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
-against-
THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AON
NATIONAL FLOOD SERVICES, and KAH INSURANCE
BROKERAGE INC.
Defendants(s).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff, OREST BABCHUCK, by their attorneys THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL
J.S. PONTONE, ESQ., P.C., state and allege the following upon information and belief:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff resided and are domiciled within this State and County. Their property,
at the address shown below, was insured by the Defendants.
Claims Property
City State Zip
Name Street Policy Number
Staten Island New York 10306-5761 87040615992017
B bchuck Wa
2. Defendants, The Hartford Fire Insurance Company, is a foreign corporation duly
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Indiana, with its principal
"Defendants"
place of business located at One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, CT 06155 (hereinafter "Defendants").
3. Defendants, Aon National Flood Services, is a foreign corporation duly organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Kansas, with itsprincipal place of
business located at 7701 College Boulevard, Overland Park, KS 66210 (hereinafter
"Defendants"
).
3 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018
4. Defendants, Kah Insurance Brokerage Inc. is a corporation duly organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New York, with itsprincipal place of
"Defendants"
business located at 510 Broadhollow Rd 4 210, Melville, NY 11747(hereinafter "Defendants").
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case and personal jurisdiction
over the Defendants, who is doing business in this State and County.
6. Venue of this action in this Court is proper because the property at issue in this
case is located here. Plaintiff reside in this County.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
7. This is an action for damages arising out of the failure and refusal of Defendants
to honor itsobligations under a property insurance policy that Defendants sold and issued to
Plaintiff who seek judgment that Defendants is liable to Plaintiff for damages caused by
Plaintiff'
Superstorm Sandy to Plaintiff insured property.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8. Defendants sold and issued a policy of insurance to Plaintiff covering losses to
their dwelling and personal property as a result of flooding. Plaintiff's policy number is shown
in the table above. The policy was in fullforce and effect on the date of the incident referred to
herein. Plaintiff paid all premiums when due.
("Storm"
9. On or about October 29, 2012, Superstorm Sandy ("Storm") made landfall in the
greater New York Metropolitan area, causing widespread devastation of property.
10. As a result of the Storm, Plaintiff sustained substantial losses and flood damage to
their property. Plaintiff were covered by an insurance policy issued by the Defendants.
11. Plaintiff reported the damage and properly submitted a claim for flood damage to
4 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018
Defendants. Plaintiff duly performed all of the conditions of their insurance policy and fully
complied with all provisions and investigations of their claims.
12. The Defendants, through their agents, servants and/or employees, improperly
Plaintiff'
adjusted and denied at least a portion of claims without an adequate investigation, even
Plaintiff'
though PlaintifF losses were covered under their policy.
13. The Defendants, through its agents, servants and/or employees, unjustifiably
refused to perform their obligations under the Policy and wrongfully denied payment in the full
Plaintiff'
amount of PlaintifF claims.
14. Plaintiff hired independent experts and consultants to evaluate the damages
sustained to their property. Plaintiff's losses were thoroughly documented and submitted to
Defendants for review. Despite itscontractual duty under the Policies to fairly and properly
adjust these claims, Defendants failed and refused to sufficiently compensate Plaintiff for their
covered losses pursuant to the Policies.
15. Because Defendants failed to pay and/or underpaid Plaintiff on their claims,
Plaintiff have either not been able to properly and/or completely repair the damages to their
property or their repairs were delayed due to lack of funds. This has caused additional damages
to Plaintiff that were within the contemplation of the parties as a foreseeable consequence of the
Defendants's failure or delay in performing itsobligations under the Policy.
AS AND FOR A FIRST
CAUSE OF ACTION
(BREACH OF CONTRACT)
16. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in
the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
17. The Policy, at all times relevant and material to the case, constituted contracts
5 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018
between Plaintiff and the Defendants.
18. Plaintiff fully performed under the contract by paying allpremiums when due and
by cooperating with the Defendants regarding the claims. Plaintiff timely complied with all
conditions precedent to their recovery herein, including appropriate and adequate demand.
Alternatively, Defendants waived or excused such conditions precedent.
19. Defendants failed to perform and materially breached the insurance contracts
when itwrongly failed to pay and refused to reimburse Plaintiff what they were owed for
damages caused by the Storm to property covered under the policy. Defendants also breached
the contract by failing to perform other obligations itowed Plaintiff under the Policy.
20. Because of itsfailure to reimburse Plaintiff for the covered losses, Defendants is
liable to and owes Plaintiff for the actual damages that they suffered as a result of Defendants's
breach, all costs associated with recovering, repairing and/or replacing the covered property
including compensatory damages in an amount to be established at trialtogether with interest
and all other damages that Plaintiff may prove as allowed by law.
AS AND FOR A SECOND
CAUSE OF ACTION
(BREACH OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING)
21. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in
the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
22. Defendants had a duty to deal fairly and in good faith with the Plaintiff. There is
an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every insurance contract. This covenant
obligates each party to the contract to refrain from taking any action or litigation position that
would deprive the other of the benefits of the contract or cause undue hardship or harm to the
other party. It also requires an insurer, inter alia, to investigate claims in good faith and to
6 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018
reasonably and promptly pay covered claims.
23. Plaintiff timely complied with all conditions precedent to their recovery herein,
appropriate and adequate demand, or Defendants waived or excused such conditions
including
precedent.
24. By wrongfully denying payments to Plaintiff, Defendants breached the Policies,
causing damage, including consequential damages.
25. Defendants breached or will breach itsduty to deal fairly and in good faith to the
extent that ithas or will engage in conduct calculated to further itsown economic interests at the
expense of Plaintiff.
26. Specifically, upon information and belief, Defendants breached its duty to
Plaintiff, dealt unfairly and violated the New York Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act
including, but not limited to:
Plaintiff'
a. misrepresenting to Plaintiff that claims were not covered under the
Policies even though the damage resulted from a covered cause of loss;
Plaintiff'
b. conducting an unreasonable investigation of Plaintiff claims;
Plaintiff'
c. investigating Plaintiff claims only to obtain facts supporting the claim denial that
they had already decided to make; and
Plaintiff'
d. refusing to accept the facts and documentation supporting Plaintiff claims
prepared by Plaintiff and by experts on their behalf.
27. Upon information and belief, the Defendants's conduct constitutes a pattern of
unfair dealing and unfair settlement practices directed at Plaintiff and the public at large,
including, but not limited to:
a. ignoring pertinent provisions or binding judicial interpretations of the terms and
provisions contained in the Policy, as well as the custom and practice of the
insurance trade;
b. making representations to the public at large in itsinsurance advertisements and
7 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018
brochures regarding the insurance coverage provided under standardized
insurance policies which are in conflict with and contradict the insurance
provisions and practices of Defendants as demonstrated by the facts in this case;
c. failing to acknowledge or act with reasonable promptness on legitimate requests
and communications for coverage or provide pertinent communications as to
claims;
d. unreasonably, inadequately and improperly investigating claims and requests for
insurance coverage;
e. making use of the funds to attempt to limit coverage that should have been paid to
policyholders in response to their claim for coverage;
f. failing to adopt and/or follow reasonable standards for investigating and resolving
by appeal issues arising under policies;
g. failing and refusing to effectuate prompt and equitable settlements;
h. failing to promptly advise of acceptance or denial of claims;
i. compelling policyholders to institute suit for coverage by unreasonably refusing
to settle and pay claims; and
j. committing unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the handling of insurance
Plaintiff'
claims, including claims, and violating provisions of the New York
Insurance Law, including without limitation, Section 2601 of such Act which
governs Unfair Claim Settlement Practices of insurance companies.
28. Defendants had economic incentive to disregard its obligation to act in good faith
and deal fairly with policyholders, including Plaintiff, regarding large-dollar claims, including,
but not limited to:
policyholders'
a. the cumulative interest earned on premiums and reserves during
the periods of dispute;
b. the discounts unfairly extracted from policyholders when policyholders are forced
to settle for less than the claim is worth because of the time pressure the insurer
exerts, when they know the insured is often in a place of vulnerability;
c. the cumulative value of the claims policyholders abandons when they accept
erroneous disclaimers of coverage or lose the will or lack the ability to litigate to
obtain the insurance coverage and proceeds to which they are legally entitled; and
8 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018
d. lower insurance premiums from and better relations with their reinsurers.
29. Defendants have breached, or will breach, the duties of good faith and fair dealing
owed to Plaintiff, and to the public at large, by other acts and omissions of which Plaintiff are
Defendants'
presently unaware. duty of good faith and fair dealing continues during the
pendency of this case. Plaintiff reserve the right to seek leave of the Court to amend this
Complaint at such time as they may ascertain other acts and omissions actionable as reaches of
the duty of good faith and fairdealing.
30. As a result of the foregoing, Defendants is liable to Plaintiff for compensatory and
consequential damages and costs and for punitive damages in an amount Plaintiff may prove at
trial,all costs associated with recovering, repairing and/or replacing the damaged property,
attorneys'
fees and expenses, together with interest and allother damages Plaintiff may prove as
allowed by law. These damages were within the contemplation of the parties as a foreseeable
consequence of Defendants's failure to perform itsobligations under the contract and itsbreach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and are necessary to put Plaintiff in the
same position they would have been had the contract been performed.
AS AND FOR A THIRD
CAUSE OF ACTION
(VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW §§ 349 4 350)
31. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in
the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
32. New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 prohibits deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in
the State of New York.
33. Defendants is engaging in deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of the
business of insurance and the furnishing of insurance services in New York as described in the
9 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018
facts and allegations set forth in the paragraphs above.
Defendants'
34. As a result of the foregoing, including conduct and violations of New
York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, Defendants is liable to Plaintiff for compensatory
and consequential damages and costs, for treble damages in an amount Plaintiff may prove at
attorneys'
trialand for fees and expenses, together with interest and all other damages Plaintiff
may prove as allowed by law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff herein demand judgment against Defendants as follows: on the
First Cause of Action compensatory damages in an amount to be established at trial;on the
Second Cause of Action compensatory, consequential and punitive damages in an amount to be
established at trial;on the Third Cause of Action compensatory, consequential and punitive
damages in an amount to be established at trial;on each Cause of Action herein Plaintiff
attorneys'
demands reasonable fees, costs, expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as
provided by law and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Yours, etc.,
:
Michael J.S. Pontone, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL J.S. PONTONE, ESQ., P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
OREST BABCHUK
532 Union Street
Brooklyn, NY 11215
917-648-8784
10 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss:
COUNTY OF RICHMOND )
Orest Babchuck, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I am the plaintiff in the action herein. I have read the annexed summons and complaint
and know there contents thereof, and the same are true to my knowledge except those matters
therein that are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to tho matter I believe
to be true.
Ore Babc
Swom to befo me this 2 day of v 2018
9® Y04
1VE6090310
Queens County
a 20
7
11 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
OREST BABCHUK,
Index No.:
Plaintiff,
-against-
THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AON
NATIONAL FLOOD SERVICES, and KAH INSURANCE
BROKERAGE INC.
Defendants(s).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Signature Rule
Michael J.S. Pontone, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL J.S. PONTONE, ESQ., P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
OREST BABCHUK
532 Union Street
Brooklyn, NY 11215
917-648-8784
12 of 12
Preview
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X OREST BABCHUK, Index No.: Plaintiff, SUMMONS -against- THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AON NATIONAL FLOOD SERVICES, and KAH INSURANCE BROKERAGE INC. Defendant(s). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X To the above-named Defendants(s), You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, ifthe complaint is not served withthis summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiffs attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete ifthis summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. The basis of venue is the Plaintiff's former residence, which is location of the insured property. Dated: Brooklyn, New York August 6, 2018 Yours, etc., By: Iviichael J.S. Pontone, E . ' THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J.S. PONTONE, ESQ., P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff OREST BABCHUK 532 Union Street Brooklyn, NY 11215 917-648-8784 1 of 12 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018 TO: The Hartford Fire Insurance Company One Hartford Plaza Hartford, CT 06155 Aon National Flood Services 7701 College Boulevard Overland Park, KS 66210 Kah Insurance Brokerage Inc. 510 Broadhollow Rd 4 210 Melville, NY 11747 2 of 12 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X OREST BABCHUK, Index No.: Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AON NATIONAL FLOOD SERVICES, and KAH INSURANCE BROKERAGE INC. Defendants(s). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, OREST BABCHUCK, by their attorneys THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J.S. PONTONE, ESQ., P.C., state and allege the following upon information and belief: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff resided and are domiciled within this State and County. Their property, at the address shown below, was insured by the Defendants. Claims Property City State Zip Name Street Policy Number Staten Island New York 10306-5761 87040615992017 B bchuck Wa 2. Defendants, The Hartford Fire Insurance Company, is a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Indiana, with its principal "Defendants" place of business located at One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, CT 06155 (hereinafter "Defendants"). 3. Defendants, Aon National Flood Services, is a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Kansas, with itsprincipal place of business located at 7701 College Boulevard, Overland Park, KS 66210 (hereinafter "Defendants" ). 3 of 12 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018 4. Defendants, Kah Insurance Brokerage Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New York, with itsprincipal place of "Defendants" business located at 510 Broadhollow Rd 4 210, Melville, NY 11747(hereinafter "Defendants"). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case and personal jurisdiction over the Defendants, who is doing business in this State and County. 6. Venue of this action in this Court is proper because the property at issue in this case is located here. Plaintiff reside in this County. NATURE OF THE ACTION 7. This is an action for damages arising out of the failure and refusal of Defendants to honor itsobligations under a property insurance policy that Defendants sold and issued to Plaintiff who seek judgment that Defendants is liable to Plaintiff for damages caused by Plaintiff' Superstorm Sandy to Plaintiff insured property. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8. Defendants sold and issued a policy of insurance to Plaintiff covering losses to their dwelling and personal property as a result of flooding. Plaintiff's policy number is shown in the table above. The policy was in fullforce and effect on the date of the incident referred to herein. Plaintiff paid all premiums when due. ("Storm" 9. On or about October 29, 2012, Superstorm Sandy ("Storm") made landfall in the greater New York Metropolitan area, causing widespread devastation of property. 10. As a result of the Storm, Plaintiff sustained substantial losses and flood damage to their property. Plaintiff were covered by an insurance policy issued by the Defendants. 11. Plaintiff reported the damage and properly submitted a claim for flood damage to 4 of 12 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018 Defendants. Plaintiff duly performed all of the conditions of their insurance policy and fully complied with all provisions and investigations of their claims. 12. The Defendants, through their agents, servants and/or employees, improperly Plaintiff' adjusted and denied at least a portion of claims without an adequate investigation, even Plaintiff' though PlaintifF losses were covered under their policy. 13. The Defendants, through its agents, servants and/or employees, unjustifiably refused to perform their obligations under the Policy and wrongfully denied payment in the full Plaintiff' amount of PlaintifF claims. 14. Plaintiff hired independent experts and consultants to evaluate the damages sustained to their property. Plaintiff's losses were thoroughly documented and submitted to Defendants for review. Despite itscontractual duty under the Policies to fairly and properly adjust these claims, Defendants failed and refused to sufficiently compensate Plaintiff for their covered losses pursuant to the Policies. 15. Because Defendants failed to pay and/or underpaid Plaintiff on their claims, Plaintiff have either not been able to properly and/or completely repair the damages to their property or their repairs were delayed due to lack of funds. This has caused additional damages to Plaintiff that were within the contemplation of the parties as a foreseeable consequence of the Defendants's failure or delay in performing itsobligations under the Policy. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF CONTRACT) 16. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 17. The Policy, at all times relevant and material to the case, constituted contracts 5 of 12 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018 between Plaintiff and the Defendants. 18. Plaintiff fully performed under the contract by paying allpremiums when due and by cooperating with the Defendants regarding the claims. Plaintiff timely complied with all conditions precedent to their recovery herein, including appropriate and adequate demand. Alternatively, Defendants waived or excused such conditions precedent. 19. Defendants failed to perform and materially breached the insurance contracts when itwrongly failed to pay and refused to reimburse Plaintiff what they were owed for damages caused by the Storm to property covered under the policy. Defendants also breached the contract by failing to perform other obligations itowed Plaintiff under the Policy. 20. Because of itsfailure to reimburse Plaintiff for the covered losses, Defendants is liable to and owes Plaintiff for the actual damages that they suffered as a result of Defendants's breach, all costs associated with recovering, repairing and/or replacing the covered property including compensatory damages in an amount to be established at trialtogether with interest and all other damages that Plaintiff may prove as allowed by law. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING) 21. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 22. Defendants had a duty to deal fairly and in good faith with the Plaintiff. There is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every insurance contract. This covenant obligates each party to the contract to refrain from taking any action or litigation position that would deprive the other of the benefits of the contract or cause undue hardship or harm to the other party. It also requires an insurer, inter alia, to investigate claims in good faith and to 6 of 12 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018 reasonably and promptly pay covered claims. 23. Plaintiff timely complied with all conditions precedent to their recovery herein, appropriate and adequate demand, or Defendants waived or excused such conditions including precedent. 24. By wrongfully denying payments to Plaintiff, Defendants breached the Policies, causing damage, including consequential damages. 25. Defendants breached or will breach itsduty to deal fairly and in good faith to the extent that ithas or will engage in conduct calculated to further itsown economic interests at the expense of Plaintiff. 26. Specifically, upon information and belief, Defendants breached its duty to Plaintiff, dealt unfairly and violated the New York Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act including, but not limited to: Plaintiff' a. misrepresenting to Plaintiff that claims were not covered under the Policies even though the damage resulted from a covered cause of loss; Plaintiff' b. conducting an unreasonable investigation of Plaintiff claims; Plaintiff' c. investigating Plaintiff claims only to obtain facts supporting the claim denial that they had already decided to make; and Plaintiff' d. refusing to accept the facts and documentation supporting Plaintiff claims prepared by Plaintiff and by experts on their behalf. 27. Upon information and belief, the Defendants's conduct constitutes a pattern of unfair dealing and unfair settlement practices directed at Plaintiff and the public at large, including, but not limited to: a. ignoring pertinent provisions or binding judicial interpretations of the terms and provisions contained in the Policy, as well as the custom and practice of the insurance trade; b. making representations to the public at large in itsinsurance advertisements and 7 of 12 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018 brochures regarding the insurance coverage provided under standardized insurance policies which are in conflict with and contradict the insurance provisions and practices of Defendants as demonstrated by the facts in this case; c. failing to acknowledge or act with reasonable promptness on legitimate requests and communications for coverage or provide pertinent communications as to claims; d. unreasonably, inadequately and improperly investigating claims and requests for insurance coverage; e. making use of the funds to attempt to limit coverage that should have been paid to policyholders in response to their claim for coverage; f. failing to adopt and/or follow reasonable standards for investigating and resolving by appeal issues arising under policies; g. failing and refusing to effectuate prompt and equitable settlements; h. failing to promptly advise of acceptance or denial of claims; i. compelling policyholders to institute suit for coverage by unreasonably refusing to settle and pay claims; and j. committing unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the handling of insurance Plaintiff' claims, including claims, and violating provisions of the New York Insurance Law, including without limitation, Section 2601 of such Act which governs Unfair Claim Settlement Practices of insurance companies. 28. Defendants had economic incentive to disregard its obligation to act in good faith and deal fairly with policyholders, including Plaintiff, regarding large-dollar claims, including, but not limited to: policyholders' a. the cumulative interest earned on premiums and reserves during the periods of dispute; b. the discounts unfairly extracted from policyholders when policyholders are forced to settle for less than the claim is worth because of the time pressure the insurer exerts, when they know the insured is often in a place of vulnerability; c. the cumulative value of the claims policyholders abandons when they accept erroneous disclaimers of coverage or lose the will or lack the ability to litigate to obtain the insurance coverage and proceeds to which they are legally entitled; and 8 of 12 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018 d. lower insurance premiums from and better relations with their reinsurers. 29. Defendants have breached, or will breach, the duties of good faith and fair dealing owed to Plaintiff, and to the public at large, by other acts and omissions of which Plaintiff are Defendants' presently unaware. duty of good faith and fair dealing continues during the pendency of this case. Plaintiff reserve the right to seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint at such time as they may ascertain other acts and omissions actionable as reaches of the duty of good faith and fairdealing. 30. As a result of the foregoing, Defendants is liable to Plaintiff for compensatory and consequential damages and costs and for punitive damages in an amount Plaintiff may prove at trial,all costs associated with recovering, repairing and/or replacing the damaged property, attorneys' fees and expenses, together with interest and allother damages Plaintiff may prove as allowed by law. These damages were within the contemplation of the parties as a foreseeable consequence of Defendants's failure to perform itsobligations under the contract and itsbreach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and are necessary to put Plaintiff in the same position they would have been had the contract been performed. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW §§ 349 4 350) 31. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 32. New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in the State of New York. 33. Defendants is engaging in deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of the business of insurance and the furnishing of insurance services in New York as described in the 9 of 12 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018 facts and allegations set forth in the paragraphs above. Defendants' 34. As a result of the foregoing, including conduct and violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, Defendants is liable to Plaintiff for compensatory and consequential damages and costs, for treble damages in an amount Plaintiff may prove at attorneys' trialand for fees and expenses, together with interest and all other damages Plaintiff may prove as allowed by law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff herein demand judgment against Defendants as follows: on the First Cause of Action compensatory damages in an amount to be established at trial;on the Second Cause of Action compensatory, consequential and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial;on the Third Cause of Action compensatory, consequential and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial;on each Cause of Action herein Plaintiff attorneys' demands reasonable fees, costs, expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Yours, etc., : Michael J.S. Pontone, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J.S. PONTONE, ESQ., P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff OREST BABCHUK 532 Union Street Brooklyn, NY 11215 917-648-8784 10 of 12 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018 VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss: COUNTY OF RICHMOND ) Orest Babchuck, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the plaintiff in the action herein. I have read the annexed summons and complaint and know there contents thereof, and the same are true to my knowledge except those matters therein that are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to tho matter I believe to be true. Ore Babc Swom to befo me this 2 day of v 2018 9® Y04 1VE6090310 Queens County a 20 7 11 of 12 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X OREST BABCHUK, Index No.: Plaintiff, -against- THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AON NATIONAL FLOOD SERVICES, and KAH INSURANCE BROKERAGE INC. Defendants(s). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT Signature Rule Michael J.S. Pontone, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J.S. PONTONE, ESQ., P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff OREST BABCHUK 532 Union Street Brooklyn, NY 11215 917-648-8784 12 of 12