Preview
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
MAKESHA COYE-WILLIAMS AND TROY Index No.: 52108/2018
WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION.
Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TO
DISMISS AND IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CROSS-MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE AN AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND TO COMPEL
Seth M. Rosner, Esq.
APorneys for Plaintiffs
1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 325
Garden City, New York 11530
(516) 240-8218
1 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
Table of Contents
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................... I
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.................................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................... 2
LEGAL ARGUMENT ............................................................................. 10
I. THE COURT SHOULD ALLOW THE WILLIAMSES TO FILE AN AMENDED VERIFIED
COMPLAINT BECAUSE LIBERTY WILL NOT SUFFER PREJUDICE OR SURPRISE AS A RESULT OF THE
AMENDMENT, AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS NOT PALPABLY INSUFFICIENT OR DEVOID OF
MERIT. 10
II. LIBERTY ERRED IN DENYING COVERAGE BASED ON THE WILLIAMSES’ FAILURE TO
PROVIDE PROOF OF LOSS WITHIN 60 DAYS BECAUSE THE WILLIAMSES NEVER RECEIVED A PROOF
OF LOSS FORM FROM LIBERTY. .................................................................................11
III. THE WILLIAMSES HAVE SUFFICIENTLY PLED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BAD FAITH
SEEKING CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES..........................................................................14
IV. THE COURT SHOULD COMPEL LIBERTY TO FULLY RESPOND TO THE WILLIAMSES’
APRIL 10, 2018 AND OCTOBER 24, 2019 NOTICES FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION. ........17
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 25
2 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
Table of Authorities
Cases
Advanced Chimney, Inc. v. Graziano, 153 A.D.3d 478, 60 N.Y.S.3d 210 (2d
Dep’t 2017)............................................................................................... 20
Bertalo’s Restaurant v. Exchange Ins, 240 A.D.2d 452, 454 (2d Dep’t 1997) . 20
Bi-Economy Mkt., Inc. v. Harleysville Ins. Co. of N.Y., 10 N.Y.3d 187, 194
(2008) ........................................................................................................ 15
D.K. Property, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of PiLsburgh, 168 A.D.3d 505,
506, 92 N.Y.S.3d 231, 232 (1st Dep’t 2019) ........................................... 15
Diamond State Ins. v. Utica First, 37 A.D.3d 160, 161 (1st Dep’t 2007).......... 19
Dickinson v Igoni, 76 A.D.3d 943, 908 NYS2d 85 (2d Dept 2010) ................. 14
E. Cuker v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting, 98 A.D.2d 621, 621 (1st Dep’t
1983) ......................................................................................................... 19
EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11, 19, 799 N.Y.S.2d 170
(2005). ....................................................................................................... 14
Going 2 Extremes v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., 100 A.D.3d 694,
953 N.Y.S.2d 865 (2d Dept. 2012).......................................................... 13
Goldman v. Allstate Ins. Cos., 220 A.D.2d 381, 631 N.Y.S.2d 893 (2d Dep’t
1995) ......................................................................................................... 13
Goodale v. Pioneer Ins. Co., 206 A.D.2d 725, 614 N.Y.S.2d 657 (3d Dept.), lv.
to appeal denied, 84 N.Y.2d 809 (1994) ................................................... 13
Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182 (1977) ..... 14
Igbarra Realty Corp. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting
Association, 63 N.Y.2d 201, 481 N.Y.S.2d 60 (1984) ............................. 13
Koump v. Smith, 25 N.Y.2d 287, 294 (1969) ..................................................... 19
3 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
LiLer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 208 A.D.2d 602, 617 N.Y.S.2d 205 (2d Dep’t 1994)
................................................................................................................... 13
Lucido v. Mancuso, 49 A.D.3d 220, 221 (2d Dep’t 2008) ................................ 10
Medina v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 303 A.D.2d 987, 989 (4th
Dep’t 2003)............................................................................................... 25
Meserole Factory, LLC v. Arch Ins. Group, 88 A.D.3d 967, 931 N.Y.S.2d 533
(2d Dept. 2011) ........................................................................................ 13
O’Halloran v. Metro Transp. Auth., 169 A.D.3d 556, 557 (1st Dep’t 2019)..... 24
People v. Munoz, 207 A.D.2d 418, 419 (2d Dep’t 1994). ................................. 11
Sokol v Leader, 74 A.D.3d 1180, 904 N.Y.S.2d 153 (2d Dept 2010) ............... 14
Tsutsui v Barasch , 67 A.D.3d 896, 892 NYS2d 400 (2d Dept 2009) .............. 14
Statutes
CPLR § 3025(b) .................................................................................................. 10
N.Y. Ins. L. § 3407(a) ......................................................................................... 11
NY CPLR § 3101(a) ........................................................................................... 17
Regulations
Regulation 64 (§ 11 NYCRR § 216.9): ............................................................. 12
ii
4 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This insurance coverage and bad faith action could have been
avoided. The coverage prong could have been avoided if defendant
Liberty Insurance Co. sent its proof of loss demand directly to plaintiffs
Makesha Coye-Williams and Troy Williams, rather than through their
aPorney. The bad faith prong could have been avoided if Liberty’s
employees assisted the Williamses with their claim, instead of treating
them as suspects.
As explained more fully below, Liberty is not entitled to summary
judgment based on the Williamses’ failure to submit proofs of loss
because the statute that governs proofs of loss in insurance policies
requires that the insurer demand proof of loss directly from the insured;
here, Liberty’s counsel sent the proof of loss demand to the Williamses’
counsel. Furthermore Liberty is not entitled to dismissal of the
Williamses’ claim for consequential damages pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)
because the claim is adequately pled in the proposed Amended Verified
Complaint, and the Court should allow the Williamses to file the
proposed Amended Verified Complaint because Liberty will not suffer
prejudice or surprise as a result of the amendment, and the proposed
1
5 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
amendment is not palpably insufficient or devoid of merit. Finally, the
Court should compel Liberty to fully respond to certain outstanding
discovery demands.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This action arises out of an oil burner fire that occurred on
November 29, 2016 at the Williams’ home at 9 Woodland Place, White
Plains, New York. Rosner Aff., Exh. A, ¶ 9; Rosner Aff., Exh. F., 8:24–5.
The fire and fuel oil release caused contamination to the Williams’
dwelling and personal property. Id., ¶ 10.
On the date the fire occurred, the Williamses were covered by a
homeowners insurance policy issued by Liberty, Policy No. H37-228-
171747-40 for the policy period November 9, 2016 to November 9, 2017.
Rosner Aff., Exh. D. The policy contained a “proof of loss” provision that
provides, in relevant part:
1. Your Duties After Loss. In case of a loss to
covered property, you must see that the
following are done:
e. Prepare an inventory of damaged personal
property showing quantity, description, actual
cash value and amount of loss. Attach all bills,
receipts and related documents that justify the
figures in the inventory.
2
6 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
g. Send to us, within 60 days after our request,
your signed, sworn proof of loss which sets forth,
to the best of your knowledge and belief:
(1) The time and cause of loss;
(2) the interest of the “insured” and all others in
the property involved and all liens on the
property;
(3) Other insurance which may cover the loss;
(4) changes in title and occupancy of the property
during the term of the policy;
(5) Specifications of damaged buildings and
detailed repair estimates;
(6) The inventory of damaged personal property
described in 2.e. above.
Id., Exh D, pp.8–9.
John Mangini is a Liberty Mutual employee who manages a team
of property field adjusters.1 Id., Exh. G, 8:25–9:2. Joan DiVico was the
adjuster assigned to the Williams’ claim arising from the fire. Id., 26:15–
17. 1. She was responsible for “assigning” a company called Rainbow to
the Williams’ claim for cleanup. Id., 41:17–18. Liberty had concerns about
Rainbow relating to water damage claims, so they had been removed
from Liberty’s water mitigation program; however, they were not
1
Liberty Insurance is a subsidiary of Liberty Mutual. Id., 7:6–14.
3
7 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
removed from Liberty’s fire mitigation program. Id., 41:19–42:2. Liberty
did not discuss these concerns with the Williamses. Id., 42:23–43:3. During
the period when the Williamses’ claim was active, Liberty investigated
Rainbow, but did not notify the Williamses about the investigation. Id.,
42:23–43:6.
Frank Macchione works in the Liberty Mutual Special
Investigations Unit (“SIU”), which investigates potential fraud involving
policyholders and contractors. Rosner Aff., Exh. H, 13:20–22, 14:18–25.
Macchione conducted a background check on the Williamses even
though Mangini’s primary concern with the Williams claim was the
involvement of Rainbow. Id., 32:17–23; see also id. 50:8–23. This was
Liberty Mutual’s standard practice when SIU accepted a referral of a
claim. Id., 33:6–10.
Macchione noted in the Williams file that there were no liens,
judgments or bankruptcies, no criminal history and no prior related
losses. 50:21–51:15. Nevertheless, Macchione referred the Williamses to
the New York State Department of Financial Services and the National
Insurance Crime Bureau. Id., 54:14–25. The referral was based on
estimates in the claims file for photographic cleaning, rug cleaning and
4
8 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
dry cleaning, an inflated contents inventory and an inflated dwelling
estimate. Id., 55:7-12. All of these estimates were provided by Prestige
Realty Group and/or Rainbow. Id., 55:22–56:2.
The National Insurance Crime Bureau and the New York State
Department of Financial Services both initiated investigations of some of
the companies owned by Weoer Jeannot. Id., 57:15–18, 58:9–12. One of
Macchione’s file notes states: “[q]uestionable inflated invoices provided
by Prestige Realty Group.” Id., 33:25–34:3. Prestige and Rainbow are both
owned by Weoer Jeannot. Id., 35:12–23.2 CPR (Consumer Protection
Restoration) is another company that is owned by Weoer Jeannot that Ed
Silvestri is involved with. Id. 85:3–9.
The Wiliamses had to undergo examinations under oath. Id., 95:5–
6. At that point in Liberty Mutual’s investigation, Macchione believed that
the invoices submiPed by Silvestri, Jeannot and their team were altered.
Id., 96:8–10. When he was asked what information he possessed that
2
Macchione was involved in one other claim that was denied in
which he concluded that Prestige engaged in questionable behavior
(performing demolition work before Liberty Mutual’s inspection). Id.
39:24–40:8. Ed Silverstri provided inconsistent statements with regard to
how that loss occurred. Id., 40:16–23. Silvestri was also involved with the
Williams claim. Id., 41:13–15.
5
9 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
would show that the Williamses submiPed altered invoices in connection
with their claim, Macchione asserted that Prestige was a direct agent of
the Williamses because they had retained Prestige to act on their behalf.
Id., 96:12–21, 98:5–12. In fact, none of the vendors that Macchione
interviewed during the investigation of the Williams claim transacted any
business directly with the Williamses. Id., 99:20–24.
Macchione asserted that the Williamses provided false and
misleading information in connection with their claim. Specifically, he
contended that Mr. Williams provided false information about the facts of
the loss itself that differed from the fire department’s version of events.
Id., 122:2–7. He contended that Prestige (who he continued to characterize
as an agent of the Williamses) provided false and misleading information,
including receipts. Id. 122:24–123:2, 124:24–125:16, 131:22–132:2. However,
it is Macchione’s understanding that Ed Silvestri, Weoer Jeannot or
someone working for them submiPed documentation directly to Liberty
Mutual by e-mail or through the electronic vendor system. Id. 133:13–19.
Macchione further asserted that the Williamses intentionally
introduced oil, gasoline or some sort of petroleum product into their
home. Id., 127:23-128:2 This assertion is based on the fact that they were
6
10 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
the only one who had keys to the house. Id., 128:2–3, 129:14–15.
Macchione never verified the identify of any other vendor during his
investigation that had access to the home. Id., 131:10–13.
The Williamses had their oil furnace replaced with a gas furnace
around January 2017. Id., Exh. F., 30:23–31–18. This is long before May 10,
2017, when Liberty conducted a site inspection. Id., Exh. H, 105:24–106:17.
Rainbow packed the Williams’ personal property in boxes and
stored it in a warehouse in Garnersville, New York. Rosner Aff., Exh. E,
13:9–12, 14:9–10, 16:3–4. Before the removal of the property, no list of the
items that were placed in storage was prepared by Rainbow or the
Williamses. Id., 16:13–18. Whenever the Williamses wanted access to their
stored contents, they had to go to the warehouse in Garnersville and wait
for someone to come to give them access. Id. 17:19–20. The items from the
Garnersville warehouse were not returned to the Williams home until
March 30, 2019. Id., 18:20–22.
A company called Dorson Environmental issued a number of
reports concerning the status of the Williams’ house after the fire. Rosner
Aff., Exh. G, 26:5–9, 27:18–22, 28:21–22. The reports were wriPen by
Dorson employee Bruce Stetson, P.E. Id., 29:12–16. In response to
7
11 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
Stetson’s recommendation that the ceilings and walls in the Williams
home had to be removed to remediate a home heating oil condition,
Liberty sent its own “air tester” to investigate instead of hiring a
professional engineer experienced in environmental issues. Id., 31:14–21,
32:5–8. Mangini sent mold mitigation specialists Brian Starkey and Robert
Corley to investigate the Williams claim. Id., 48:6–15. Mangini doesn’t
know what licenses Starkey and Corley possessed at the time they were
working as Liberty’s experts. Id., 48:20–23. Neither Mangini nor anyone
else at Liberty sent a professional engineer with environmental
contamination experience to the Williams home. Id., 51:9–13.
ScoP Campbell is an employee of Liberty Mutual who manages
some vendors, including Rainbow. Id. 39:6–9. Mangini notified Campbell
about Rainbow in connection with the Williams claim because there were
excessive charges and the contents cleaning estimate wasn’t wriPen per
Liberty’s requirements, which include itemizing what is being cleaned.
Id., 39:19–23.
The decision to deny the Williamses’ claim was based on (1) the
fact that Rainbow submiPed documents on their behalf that were
8
12 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
fraudulent; and (2) the Williamses’ failure to submit a proof of loss form
within 60 days. Id., 65:18–23, 66: 6–11; 67:4–9.3
Rainbow was removed from the fire program, “probably because
of some of the invoices submiPed on [the Williams] file.” Id., 73:16–18, 22–
23.
When asked at his deposition “[a]s of November 2016, how many
homeowners environmental contamination claims [was he] involved
with, claims involving fuel oil, home heating oil,” Mangini’s response
was “I don’t have a number.” Rosner Aff., Exh. G, 14:11–15. From when
he started with Liberty Mutual until January 2017, Macchione had been
involved in “possibly five or so” homeowners claims involving
environmental contamination. Id, Exh. H, 24:12–16.
Liberty has moved for summary judgment solely based on the
Williams’ failure to file a proof of loss. The Williamses never received a
proof of loss form from Liberty. Mrs. Williams testified that she received
the proof of loss form from her aPorney via e-mail. Rosner Aff., Exh. E,
91:25–92:9; see also id., Exh. J (demand for proof of loss from Gerald Kirby
3
Liberty’s motion does not address the alleged fraud.
9
13 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
to Ronald Steinvurzel). Mr. Williams did not receive a proof of loss form
at all. Rosner Aff., Exh. F, 52:8–22.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
I. The Court should allow the Williamses to file an Amended
Verified Complaint because Liberty will not suffer prejudice
or surprise as a result of the amendment, and the proposed
amendment is not palpably insufficient or devoid of merit.
CPLR § 3025(b) provides that “[a] party may amend his or her
pleading, or supplement it by sePing forth additional or subsequent
transactions or occurrences, at any time by leave of court or by stipulation
of all parties. Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be
just….” “In the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from
the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted
unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently
devoid of merit.” Lucido v. Mancuso, 49 A.D.3d 220, 221 (2d Dep’t 2008).
Here, Liberty will suffer no prejudice or surprise as a result of the
amendment (which goes to the Williamses’ claim for consequential
damages), since it has already moved to dismiss that claim. The reasons
10
14 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
why the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient or patently
devoid of merit are discussed below.
II. Liberty erred in denying coverage based on the Williamses’
failure to provide proof of loss within 60 days because the
Williamses never received a proof of loss form from Liberty.
N.Y. Ins. L. § 3407(a) provides, in part, that "such insurer or insurers
shall, after such loss or damage, give to such insured a wriPen notice that it
or they desire proofs of loss to be furnished by such insured to such
insurer or insurers on a suitable blank form or forms.” (emphasis
supplied). “It is an axiom of statutory construction that the legislative
intent is to be ascertained from the language used, and that where the
words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, they should be literally
construed.” People v. Munoz, 207 A.D.2d 418, 419 (2d Dep’t 1994). Here,
the statute clearly requires an insurer to give notice to its insured, and
makes no provision for providing notice by or through intermediaries or
agents.
In this case, Liberty did not send wriPen notice to the Williamses.
The proof of loss demand was made by Liberty’s counsel to the
11
15 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
Williamses’ counsel.4 By its plain language, § 3407 requires that the
insurer provide the proof of loss notice, not through its aPorneys, and
that wriPen notice has to be made to the insured, not the insured’s
aPorney.
There are other situations where, even though the policyholders
are represented by counsel, an insurance company must still
communicate directly to their insured or a claimant. One example is
Regulation 64 (§ 11 NYCRR § 216.9):
216.9 Written notice to claimants of payment of
claim in third-party settlements.
(a) Upon payment of $5,000 or more in
settlement of any third-party liability claim,
where the claimant is a natural person, the
insurer shall cause written notice to be mailed to
the claimant at the same time payment is made,
by the insurer or its representative (including the
insurer's attorney), to the claimant's attorney or
other representative of the claimant by draft,
check or otherwise.
So, even if a claimant is represented by counsel and was directed not to
contact the claimant directly, an insurance company shall (must) send
4
Liberty’s aPorneys also sent a copy of the proof of loss forms to
the damaged home, where Liberty knew no one was living due to the
odor/air quality issue. See Rosner Aff., Exh. G, 24: 13–17.
12
16 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
wriPen notice to the claimant in the event of a sePlement of $5,000 or
more. See hPps://www.dfs.ny.gov/insurance/ogco2007/rg070511.htm.
The requirement that the insurer be the one to request proof of loss
directly from the insured is not inconsistent with Igbarra Realty Corp. v.
New York Property Insurance Underwriting Association, 63 N.Y.2d 201, 481
N.Y.S.2d 60 (1984), which Liberty characterizes in its brief as “[t]he
leading…case in New York dealing with the consequences to an insured
of its failure to comply with the proof of loss requirements under a
property insurance policy….” Liberty’s Brief, p.4. Igbarra did not involve
wriPen notice of a demand for proofs of loss that was delivered by an
agent of the insurer to an agent of the insured, as in this case.5
5
None of the other cases Liberty cites involved wriPen notice of a
demand for proofs of loss that was delivered by an agent of the insurer to
an agent of the insured. See Going 2 Extremes v. Hartford Financial Services
Group, Inc., 100 A.D.3d 694, 953 N.Y.S.2d 865 (2d Dept. 2012); Meserole
Factory, LLC v. Arch Ins. Group, 88 A.D.3d 967, 931 N.Y.S.2d 533 (2d Dept.
2011); Goldman v. Allstate Ins. Cos., 220 A.D.2d 381, 631 N.Y.S.2d 893 (2d
Dep’t 1995); LiLer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 208 A.D.2d 602, 617 N.Y.S.2d 205 (2d
Dep’t 1994); Goodale v. Pioneer Ins. Co., 206 A.D.2d 725, 614 N.Y.S.2d 657
(3d Dept.), lv. to appeal denied, 84 N.Y.2d 809 (1994).
13
17 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
III. The Williamses have sufficiently pled a cause of action for
bad faith seeking consequential damages.
In determining whether to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR
§ 3211(a)(7), the court must assume to be true the facts pled, give every
favorable inference to the allegations, and determine only whether the
alleged facts fit any cognizable legal theory. Dickinson v Igoni, 76 A.D.3d
943, 908 NYS2d 85 (2d Dept 2010); Tsutsui v Barasch , 67 A.D.3d 896, 892
NYS2d 400 (2d Dept 2009). The test is whether the pleading states a cause
of action, not whether the plaintiff has a cause of action. Sokol v Leader, 74
A.D.3d 1180, 904 N.Y.S.2d 153 (2d Dept 2010). “Whether a plaintiff can
ultimately establish [his or her] allegations is not part of the calculus in
determining a motion to dismiss.” EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5
N.Y.3d 11, 19, 799 N.Y.S.2d 170 (2005). In determining if a pleading states
a cause of action, “the sole criterion” for the courts is whether “from its
four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together
manifest any cause of action cognizable at law.” Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,
43 N.Y.2d 268, 275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182 (1977).
The Court of Appeals has allowed separate causes of action for
breach of an insurance contract and breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing to proceed simultaneously in the context of an insurance
14
18 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
dispute when a plaintiff sufficiently alleges bad faith claims handling, as
such bad faith allows an insured to recover consequential damages. See
Bi-Economy Mkt., Inc. v. Harleysville Ins. Co. of N.Y., 10 N.Y.3d 187, 194
(2008). Here, the original Verified Complaint alleged bad faith claims
handling; the proposed Amended Verified Complaint fleshes out both
those allegations and the consequential damages allegations. See Rosner
Aff., Exhs. A, I.
At issue in D.K. Property, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of
PiLsburgh, 168 A.D.3d 505, 506, 92 N.Y.S.3d 231, 232 (1st Dep’t 2019), was
whether, at the pleading stage, a claim for consequential damages arising
from the defendant’s processing of the plaintiff’s insurance claim requires
a detailed, factual description or explanation for why such damages,
which do not directly flow from the breach, are also recoverable. The
court held that the plaintiff fulfilled its pleading requirement by
specifying the types of consequential damages claimed and alleging that
such damages were reasonably contemplated by the parties prior to
contracting. Id. The court explained:
Although proof of such consequential damages
will ultimately rest on what liability the insurer
is found to have "assumed consciously," or from
15
19 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
the plaintiff's point of view, have warranted the
plaintiff to reasonably suppose the insurer
assumed when the insurance contract was made,
a determination of whether such damages were,
in fact, foreseeable should not be decided on a
motion to dismiss and must await a fully
developed record
Id. at 507, 233.
The consequential damages pled in the Amended Verified
Complaint consist of: (1) additional living expenses paid out of the
Williams’ own funds after Liberty Mutual denied their claim; (2) the loss
of use of their home; (3) the increased cost of obtaining insurance for their
home after Liberty Mutual cancelled their policy; and (4) the increased
cost of repairing their home due to Liberty Mutual’s unreasonable delay
in handling their claim and then denying it. The Amended Verified
Complaint further asserts that these damages were reasonably
contemplated by the parties prior to contracting. Accordingly, the
Amended Verified Complaint states a cause of action for bad faith, and
the recovery of consequential damages therefor.
16
20 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
IV. The Court should compel Liberty to fully respond to the
Williamses’ April 10, 2018 and October 24, 2019 notices for
discovery and inspection.
NY CPLR § 3101(a) provides: “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all
maPer material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action
regardless of the burden of proof, by: (1) a party, or the officer, director,
member, agent or employee of a party.” This statute “sounds the keynote
for the entire article and has pervasive bearing on all of it” (Connors,
Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR
C3101:1).
In their Combined Demands, dated April 10, 2018, the Williamses
sought, inter alia,
a. Complete copies of any and all documents
relied upon in the preparation of the Verified
Answer with Counterclaim in this action.
b. Complete copies of any and all documents that
form the basis of or support Defendant’s First
Affirmative Defense entitled “FIRST
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE”.
c. Complete copies of any and all documents that
form the basis of or support Defendant’s Second
Affirmative Defense entitled “SECOND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE”.
d. Complete copies of any and all documents that
form the basis of or support Defendant’s Third
17
21 of 29
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2020 01:40 PM INDEX NO. 52108/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2020
Affirmative Defense entitled “THIRD
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE”.
e. Complete copies of