Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2014 INDEX NO. 508378/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
1015 70TH STREET LLC,
Index No.: 508378/13
Plaintiff,
-against- COMPLAINT
M&S INSURANCE AGENCY INC., LEADING
INSURANCE GROUP INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
LEADING INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., and
INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITING AGENCY,
INC.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff 1015 70th Street LLC (“Plaintiff”), by and through its attorneys, Goldberg &
Rimberg PLLC, as and for its Complaint against defendants M&S Insurance Agency Inc.,
Leading Insurance Group Insurance Co., Ltd. Leading Insurance Services, Inc. and International
Underwriting Agency, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), respectfully alleges and states:
1. Plaintiff 1015 70th Street LLC is a limited liability company duly organized
pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
2. Upon information and belief, defendant M&S Insurance Agency Inc. (“M&S”) is
a New York corporation duly authorized to conduct business in the State of New York.
3. Upon information and belief, defendant Leading Insurance Group Insurance Co.,
Ltd. is a foreign corporation.
4. Upon information and belief, at all times herein relevant, defendant Leading
Insurance Group Insurance Co., Ltd. (“LIG”) was an insurer duly authorized to issue insurance
policies in the State of New York.
5. Upon information and belief, defendant Leading Insurance Services, Inc. (“LIS”)
is a New Jersey corporation duly authorized to conduct business in the State of New York.
6. Upon information and belief, at all times herein relevant, defendant Leading
Insurance Services, Inc. was an insurer duly authorized to do issue insurance policies in the State
of New York.
7. Upon information and belief, defendant International Underwriting Agency, Inc.
(“International”) is a New York corporation duly authorized to conduct business in the State of
New York.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
8. This is an action to recover for Defendants’ failure to procure insurance for the
benefit of Plaintiff and/or to pay a claim made by Plaintiff.
9. Just a few days after purchasing an investment property located at 1015 70th
Street, Brooklyn, New York (the “Property”), the Property sustained significant damage as a
result of a fire.
10. Although some or all of the Defendants provided Plaintiff with documentation
indicating that an insurance policy was in place on the date of the fire, defendants LIG and LIS
disclaimed coverage on the ground that no policy was in effect on such date.
11. This case seeks recovery from Defendants M&S and International for their failure
to procure an insurance policy for the benefit of Plaintiff despite having provided Plaintiff with
proof that the insurance policy was in place.
12. This case also seeks a declaratory judgment that LIG and LIS are liable to
Plaintiff for the damage the Property sustained as a result of the fire.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
13. On or about October 16, 2013, Plaintiff requested a quote from its long time
insurance broker, M&S, for a property that Plaintiff was in contract to purchase
2
14. The property that Plaintiff was in contract to purchase was the Property.
15. At all times relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, the Property was a three story, three
family rental building.
16. On October 16, 2013, M&S provided Plaintiff with a quote for an insurance
policy for the Property and asked whether Plaintiff wanted to bind the policy.
17. Plaintiff did want to bind the policy and on October 17, 2013, Plaintiff returned
the paperwork and payment in full to bind the policy.
18. Later on October 17, 2013, M&S provided Plaintiff with a binder and a receipt for
payment in full of the policy’s premium.
19. The binder provided by M&S to Plaintiff is dated October 17, 2013.
20. On October 17, 2013, Plaintiff purchased the Property.
21. The binder provided by M&S to Plaintiff indicates that the insurance company
issuing the policy is “LIG”.
22. The named insured on the binder provided by M&S to Plaintiff is “1015 70th
Street LLC.”
23. The description of the property on the binder provided by M&S to Plaintiff is
“1015 70th St Brooklyn, NY 11228.”
24. The binder provided by M&S to Plaintiff indicates that the insurance policy is
effective between October 17, 2013 and October 17, 2014.
25. The binder provided by M&S to Plaintiff provides policy limits of $550,000 for
damage to the building and $43,200 for loss of rent.
26. On October 18, 2013, International, as underwriter, confirmed to M&S that the
policy was effective as of October 17, 2013.
3
27. On or about October 20, 2013, a fire occurred at the Property causing significant
damage to the structure and its contents.
28. A claim for the damage was tendered to LIG and LIS under policy number
010119298BP0100.
29. Upon information and belief, LIS is the United States manager for LIG.
30. On November 15, 2013, LIS and/or LIG sent a letter disclaiming coverage for the
fire.
31. LIS and/or LIG specifically stated that there is no coverage for Plaintiff’s
damages because it did not issue a policy that was effective on October 20, 2013.
32. LIS and/or LIG specifically stated that their records indicate that “the policy for
the above named insured was not effective until 10/25/13.”
33. LIS and/or LIG sent a copy of the disclaimer letter to International.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence against M&S)
34. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 33
as if same had been fully set forth herein.
35. At Plaintiff’s specific request, M&S undertook to procure a policy of insurance
for Plaintiff that would be effective on October 20, 2013.
36. M&S had a duty to procure insurance for Plaintiff that would be effective on
October 20, 2013.
37. Upon information and belief, M&S did not procure insurance for Plaintiff that
was effective on, among other dates, October 20, 2013.
4
38. On October 20, 2013, Plaintiff suffered damage as a result of a fire at the
Property.
39. Plaintiff’s claim to LIG and/or LIS, the insurer that issued the policy procured by
M&S, was disclaimed due to there being no insurance coverage in effect on October 20, 2013.
40. Plaintiff has been damaged in that LIG and/or LIS refused to reimburse Plaintiff
for the significant damage Plaintiff incurred as a result of the fire on October 20, 2013.
41. M&S’s actions and/or inactions are a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damage.
42. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be
determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence against International)
43. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 42
as if same had been fully set forth herein.
44. International undertook to underwrite and/or procure a policy of insurance for
Plaintiff that would be effective on, among other dates, October 20, 2013.
45. International had a duty to procure insurance for Plaintiff that would be effective
on October 20, 2013.
46. Upon information and belief, International did not procure insurance for Plaintiff
that was effective on October 20, 2013.
47. On October 20, 2013, Plaintiff suffered damage as a result of a fire at the
Property.
5
48. Plaintiff’s claim to LIG and/or LIS, the insurer that issued the policy procured
and/or underwritten by International, was disclaimed due to there being no insurance coverage in
effect on October 20, 2013.
49. Plaintiff has been damaged in that LIG and/or LIS refused to reimburse Plaintiff
for the significant damage Plaintiff incurred as a result of the fire on October 20, 2013.
50. International’s actions and/or inactions are a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s
damage.
51. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be
determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Gross Negligence against M&S and International)
52. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 51
as if same had been fully set forth herein.
53. Defendants M&S and International provided insurance documents to Plaintiff
indicating that the Property was insured on October 20, 2013 for a fire loss.
54. At all times herein relevant, M&S and International knew, or should have known,
that the Property was not insured on October 20, 2013.
55. Notwithstanding such knowledge, M&S and International led Plaintiff to believe
that the Property was insured with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights.
56. Plaintiff relied on the statements and/or documents provided by M&S &
International.
57. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be
determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00.
6
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty against M&S)
58. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57
as if same had been fully set forth herein.
59. Plaintiff and M&S had a fiduciary duty.
60. M&S acted as insurance broker for Plaintiff’s principals on numerous other
occasions.
61. Plaintiff entrusted M&S to procure an insurance policy sufficient to cover a loss
such as the fire of October 20, 2013.
62. M&S represented to Plaintiff prior to October 20, 2013 that it had procured an
insurance policy for Plaintiff sufficient to cover a loss such as the fire of October 20, 2013.
63. M&S’s representations were false when made.
64. M&S breached its obligations as a fiduciary to Plaintiff.
65. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be
determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract against M&S)
66. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 65
as if same had been fully set forth herein.
67. M&S and Plaintiff agreed that M&S would procure an insurance policy that
would be effective on October 20, 2013 for Plaintiff in exchange for valuable consideration.
68. Plaintiff paid valuable consideration to M&S.
7
69. M&S failed to procure an insurance policy that was effective on October 20,
2013.
70. M&S’s failure to procure an insurance policy that was effective on October 20,
2013 constitutes a breach of its agreement with Plaintiff.
71. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be
determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Judgment against LIG and LIS)
72. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 71
as if same had been fully set forth herein.
73. M&S is an agent of LIG and/or LIS.
74. International is an agent of LIG and/or LIS.
75. On or about October 18, 2014, M&S and/or International confirmed to Plaintiff
that Plaintiff had an insurance policy issued by LIG and/or LIS.
76. International and/or M&S were authorized by LIG and/or LIS to confirm the
existence of the policy.
77. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the said policy, LIG and LIS are obligated
to cover the claim made by Plaintiff as aforesaid.
78. The claim made by Plaintiff was covered under the policy of insurance with
defendants LIG and LIS.
79. According to the insurance policy that Plaintiff purchased, defendants LIG and
LIS have the duty to investigate and pay Plaintiff’s policy benefits for claims made for covered
damages, including additional benefits under the policy.
8
80. As a result of defendant LIG and LIS’s failure to pay Plaintiff for the damage
sustained as a result of the fire, which is a covered peril under the policy, Plaintiff's has been
damaged.
81. As a result of the foregoing Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that
defendants LIG and LIS must investigate and pay Plaintiff’s policy benefits for Plaintiff’s claim.
82. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract against LIG and LIS)
83. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 82
as if same had been fully set forth herein.
84. Defendants’ failure and refusal, as described above, to pay as it is obligated to do
under the terms of the Policy in question and under the laws of the State of New York,
constitutes a breach of defendants LIG and LIS’ contract with Plaintiff.
85. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be
determined at trial but in no event less than $500,000.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Judgment)
86. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 86
as if same had been fully set forth herein.
87. Plaintiff has had to retain counsel to prosecute the action herein and obtain
coverage pursuant to the Policy because of Defendants’ negligence and breaches as alleged
herein.
9
88. Plaintiff has had to expend money for fees and expenses by reason of Defendants’
non-compliance with the terms of the Policy.
89. That by reason of the conduct of Defendants as aforesaid, Plaintiff demands that
judgment enter against Defendants for all costs, fees and expenses incurred, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees, in connection with this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants: (a) on its first cause
of action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than $500,000; (b)
on its second cause of action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less
than $500,000; (c) on its third cause of action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial but
in no event less than $500,000; (d) on its fourth cause of action, damages in an amount to be
determined at trial but in no event less than $500,000; (e) on its fifth cause of action, damages in
an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than $500,000; (f) on its sixth cause of
action, declaring that defendants must investigate and pay Plaintiff’s policy benefits for
Plaintiff’s claim; (g) on its seventh cause of action, damages in an amount to be determined at
trial but in no event less than $500,000; (h) on its eighth cause of action, for all costs, fees and
expenses incurred, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in connection with this action; together
with any other relief which this Court deems just and proper together costs.
Dated: New York, New York
February 19, 2014
GOLDBERG & RIMBERG PLLC
By: /S/ Steven A. Weg
Steven A. Weg
Attorneys for Plaintiff
115 Broadway – 3rd Floor
New York, New York 10006
(212) 697-3250
10
Index No. 508378/13
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
1015 70TH STREET LLC,
Plaintiff,
-against-
M&S INSURANCE AGENCY INC., LEADING INSURANCE GROUP INSURANCE CO.,
LTD., LEADING INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., and INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITING
AGENCY, INC.,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
GOLDBERG & RIMBERG, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Office and Post Office Address, Telephone
115 Broadway – 3rd Floor
New York, New York 10006
(212) 697-3250
To Signature (Rule 130-1.1-a)
__________________________________
Print name beneath
Attorneys for
Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted.
Dated,
_______________________________
Attorneys for
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2014 INDEX NO. 508378/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS 1015 70TH STREET LLC, Index No.: 508378/13 Plaintiff, -against- COMPLAINT M&S INSURANCE AGENCY INC., LEADING INSURANCE GROUP INSURANCE CO., LTD., LEADING INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., and INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITING AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Plaintiff 1015 70th Street LLC (“Plaintiff”), by and through its attorneys, Goldberg & Rimberg PLLC, as and for its Complaint against defendants M&S Insurance Agency Inc., Leading Insurance Group Insurance Co., Ltd. Leading Insurance Services, Inc. and International Underwriting Agency, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), respectfully alleges and states: 1. Plaintiff 1015 70th Street LLC is a limited liability company duly organized pursuant to the laws of the State of New York. 2. Upon information and belief, defendant M&S Insurance Agency Inc. (“M&S”) is a New York corporation duly authorized to conduct business in the State of New York. 3. Upon information and belief, defendant Leading Insurance Group Insurance Co., Ltd. is a foreign corporation. 4. Upon information and belief, at all times herein relevant, defendant Leading Insurance Group Insurance Co., Ltd. (“LIG”) was an insurer duly authorized to issue insurance policies in the State of New York. 5. Upon information and belief, defendant Leading Insurance Services, Inc. (“LIS”) is a New Jersey corporation duly authorized to conduct business in the State of New York. 6. Upon information and belief, at all times herein relevant, defendant Leading Insurance Services, Inc. was an insurer duly authorized to do issue insurance policies in the State of New York. 7. Upon information and belief, defendant International Underwriting Agency, Inc. (“International”) is a New York corporation duly authorized to conduct business in the State of New York. NATURE OF THE ACTION 8. This is an action to recover for Defendants’ failure to procure insurance for the benefit of Plaintiff and/or to pay a claim made by Plaintiff. 9. Just a few days after purchasing an investment property located at 1015 70th Street, Brooklyn, New York (the “Property”), the Property sustained significant damage as a result of a fire. 10. Although some or all of the Defendants provided Plaintiff with documentation indicating that an insurance policy was in place on the date of the fire, defendants LIG and LIS disclaimed coverage on the ground that no policy was in effect on such date. 11. This case seeks recovery from Defendants M&S and International for their failure to procure an insurance policy for the benefit of Plaintiff despite having provided Plaintiff with proof that the insurance policy was in place. 12. This case also seeks a declaratory judgment that LIG and LIS are liable to Plaintiff for the damage the Property sustained as a result of the fire. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 13. On or about October 16, 2013, Plaintiff requested a quote from its long time insurance broker, M&S, for a property that Plaintiff was in contract to purchase 2 14. The property that Plaintiff was in contract to purchase was the Property. 15. At all times relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, the Property was a three story, three family rental building. 16. On October 16, 2013, M&S provided Plaintiff with a quote for an insurance policy for the Property and asked whether Plaintiff wanted to bind the policy. 17. Plaintiff did want to bind the policy and on October 17, 2013, Plaintiff returned the paperwork and payment in full to bind the policy. 18. Later on October 17, 2013, M&S provided Plaintiff with a binder and a receipt for payment in full of the policy’s premium. 19. The binder provided by M&S to Plaintiff is dated October 17, 2013. 20. On October 17, 2013, Plaintiff purchased the Property. 21. The binder provided by M&S to Plaintiff indicates that the insurance company issuing the policy is “LIG”. 22. The named insured on the binder provided by M&S to Plaintiff is “1015 70th Street LLC.” 23. The description of the property on the binder provided by M&S to Plaintiff is “1015 70th St Brooklyn, NY 11228.” 24. The binder provided by M&S to Plaintiff indicates that the insurance policy is effective between October 17, 2013 and October 17, 2014. 25. The binder provided by M&S to Plaintiff provides policy limits of $550,000 for damage to the building and $43,200 for loss of rent. 26. On October 18, 2013, International, as underwriter, confirmed to M&S that the policy was effective as of October 17, 2013. 3 27. On or about October 20, 2013, a fire occurred at the Property causing significant damage to the structure and its contents. 28. A claim for the damage was tendered to LIG and LIS under policy number 010119298BP0100. 29. Upon information and belief, LIS is the United States manager for LIG. 30. On November 15, 2013, LIS and/or LIG sent a letter disclaiming coverage for the fire. 31. LIS and/or LIG specifically stated that there is no coverage for Plaintiff’s damages because it did not issue a policy that was effective on October 20, 2013. 32. LIS and/or LIG specifically stated that their records indicate that “the policy for the above named insured was not effective until 10/25/13.” 33. LIS and/or LIG sent a copy of the disclaimer letter to International. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence against M&S) 34. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 33 as if same had been fully set forth herein. 35. At Plaintiff’s specific request, M&S undertook to procure a policy of insurance for Plaintiff that would be effective on October 20, 2013. 36. M&S had a duty to procure insurance for Plaintiff that would be effective on October 20, 2013. 37. Upon information and belief, M&S did not procure insurance for Plaintiff that was effective on, among other dates, October 20, 2013. 4 38. On October 20, 2013, Plaintiff suffered damage as a result of a fire at the Property. 39. Plaintiff’s claim to LIG and/or LIS, the insurer that issued the policy procured by M&S, was disclaimed due to there being no insurance coverage in effect on October 20, 2013. 40. Plaintiff has been damaged in that LIG and/or LIS refused to reimburse Plaintiff for the significant damage Plaintiff incurred as a result of the fire on October 20, 2013. 41. M&S’s actions and/or inactions are a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damage. 42. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence against International) 43. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 42 as if same had been fully set forth herein. 44. International undertook to underwrite and/or procure a policy of insurance for Plaintiff that would be effective on, among other dates, October 20, 2013. 45. International had a duty to procure insurance for Plaintiff that would be effective on October 20, 2013. 46. Upon information and belief, International did not procure insurance for Plaintiff that was effective on October 20, 2013. 47. On October 20, 2013, Plaintiff suffered damage as a result of a fire at the Property. 5 48. Plaintiff’s claim to LIG and/or LIS, the insurer that issued the policy procured and/or underwritten by International, was disclaimed due to there being no insurance coverage in effect on October 20, 2013. 49. Plaintiff has been damaged in that LIG and/or LIS refused to reimburse Plaintiff for the significant damage Plaintiff incurred as a result of the fire on October 20, 2013. 50. International’s actions and/or inactions are a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damage. 51. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Gross Negligence against M&S and International) 52. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 51 as if same had been fully set forth herein. 53. Defendants M&S and International provided insurance documents to Plaintiff indicating that the Property was insured on October 20, 2013 for a fire loss. 54. At all times herein relevant, M&S and International knew, or should have known, that the Property was not insured on October 20, 2013. 55. Notwithstanding such knowledge, M&S and International led Plaintiff to believe that the Property was insured with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights. 56. Plaintiff relied on the statements and/or documents provided by M&S & International. 57. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00. 6 AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Fiduciary Duty against M&S) 58. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57 as if same had been fully set forth herein. 59. Plaintiff and M&S had a fiduciary duty. 60. M&S acted as insurance broker for Plaintiff’s principals on numerous other occasions. 61. Plaintiff entrusted M&S to procure an insurance policy sufficient to cover a loss such as the fire of October 20, 2013. 62. M&S represented to Plaintiff prior to October 20, 2013 that it had procured an insurance policy for Plaintiff sufficient to cover a loss such as the fire of October 20, 2013. 63. M&S’s representations were false when made. 64. M&S breached its obligations as a fiduciary to Plaintiff. 65. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract against M&S) 66. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 65 as if same had been fully set forth herein. 67. M&S and Plaintiff agreed that M&S would procure an insurance policy that would be effective on October 20, 2013 for Plaintiff in exchange for valuable consideration. 68. Plaintiff paid valuable consideration to M&S. 7 69. M&S failed to procure an insurance policy that was effective on October 20, 2013. 70. M&S’s failure to procure an insurance policy that was effective on October 20, 2013 constitutes a breach of its agreement with Plaintiff. 71. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00. AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Judgment against LIG and LIS) 72. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 71 as if same had been fully set forth herein. 73. M&S is an agent of LIG and/or LIS. 74. International is an agent of LIG and/or LIS. 75. On or about October 18, 2014, M&S and/or International confirmed to Plaintiff that Plaintiff had an insurance policy issued by LIG and/or LIS. 76. International and/or M&S were authorized by LIG and/or LIS to confirm the existence of the policy. 77. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the said policy, LIG and LIS are obligated to cover the claim made by Plaintiff as aforesaid. 78. The claim made by Plaintiff was covered under the policy of insurance with defendants LIG and LIS. 79. According to the insurance policy that Plaintiff purchased, defendants LIG and LIS have the duty to investigate and pay Plaintiff’s policy benefits for claims made for covered damages, including additional benefits under the policy. 8 80. As a result of defendant LIG and LIS’s failure to pay Plaintiff for the damage sustained as a result of the fire, which is a covered peril under the policy, Plaintiff's has been damaged. 81. As a result of the foregoing Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that defendants LIG and LIS must investigate and pay Plaintiff’s policy benefits for Plaintiff’s claim. 82. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract against LIG and LIS) 83. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 82 as if same had been fully set forth herein. 84. Defendants’ failure and refusal, as described above, to pay as it is obligated to do under the terms of the Policy in question and under the laws of the State of New York, constitutes a breach of defendants LIG and LIS’ contract with Plaintiff. 85. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than $500,000. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Judgment) 86. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 86 as if same had been fully set forth herein. 87. Plaintiff has had to retain counsel to prosecute the action herein and obtain coverage pursuant to the Policy because of Defendants’ negligence and breaches as alleged herein. 9 88. Plaintiff has had to expend money for fees and expenses by reason of Defendants’ non-compliance with the terms of the Policy. 89. That by reason of the conduct of Defendants as aforesaid, Plaintiff demands that judgment enter against Defendants for all costs, fees and expenses incurred, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in connection with this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants: (a) on its first cause of action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than $500,000; (b) on its second cause of action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than $500,000; (c) on its third cause of action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than $500,000; (d) on its fourth cause of action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than $500,000; (e) on its fifth cause of action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than $500,000; (f) on its sixth cause of action, declaring that defendants must investigate and pay Plaintiff’s policy benefits for Plaintiff’s claim; (g) on its seventh cause of action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than $500,000; (h) on its eighth cause of action, for all costs, fees and expenses incurred, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in connection with this action; together with any other relief which this Court deems just and proper together costs. Dated: New York, New York February 19, 2014 GOLDBERG & RIMBERG PLLC By: /S/ Steven A. Weg Steven A. Weg Attorneys for Plaintiff 115 Broadway – 3rd Floor New York, New York 10006 (212) 697-3250 10 Index No. 508378/13 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS 1015 70TH STREET LLC, Plaintiff, -against- M&S INSURANCE AGENCY INC., LEADING INSURANCE GROUP INSURANCE CO., LTD., LEADING INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., and INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITING AGENCY, INC., Defendants. COMPLAINT GOLDBERG & RIMBERG, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff Office and Post Office Address, Telephone 115 Broadway – 3rd Floor New York, New York 10006 (212) 697-3250 To Signature (Rule 130-1.1-a) __________________________________ Print name beneath Attorneys for Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted. Dated, _______________________________ Attorneys for