You are here: / / Although “Imprudent” in Hindsight, ​Insurer Did Not Breach D...

Although “Imprudent” in Hindsight, ​Insurer Did Not Breach Duty of Good Faith by Refusing to Offer a Settlement at the Policy Limit

The First Department determined the insurer’s failure to make a settlement offer at the policy limit was “imprudent” in hindsight, but did not constitute a breach of its duty of good faith:

We reject plaintiffs’ argument that defendant avoided acknowledging the underlying plaintiff’s potential damages such that a refusal to offer the policy limit constituted a reckless or conscious disregard of the excess insurer’s rights. While there was some indication that damages could be significant if the medical records substantiated the underlying plaintiff’s claim of a loss of smell from a severe blow to the head, the record established that defendant’s investigation presented a great deal of medical evidence tending to show that the underlying plaintiff’s injuries were primarily preexisting soft tissue injuries unrelated to the automobile accident on April 24, 1994. Defendant’s investigation included the medical opinion of four physicians that conducted independent medical examinations; one psychologist who conducted a review of the extensive medical records; experienced defense counsel; and separate monitoring counsel for the damages trial. The review of the numerous medical records, which included contradicting evaluations of the underlying plaintiff’s treating physicians, provided a justifiable basis to fairly evaluate potential damages and assess the relative risks of declining to offer a settlement of the policy limit.

Given this evaluation, defendant’s actions do not amount to bad faith. In hindsight, it is evident that defendant’s failure to make a settlement offer of the policy limit was not prudent. However, “[a]n insurer does not breach its duty of good faith when it makes a mistake in judgment or behaves negligently” … . Here, the assessment of the insured’s exposure and the failure to make a settlement offer of the policy limit was a mistake in judgment. It does not demonstrate that defendant acted in bad faith by failing to heed contrary evidence. Instead, the record shows defendant’s reasonable belief that, under the No Fault Law, the underlying plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury causally related to the accident. Thus, we find that the record does not demonstrate any pattern of reckless or conscious disregard for plaintiffs’ rights.  General Motors Acceptance Corp v New York Cent Mut Fire Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 02384, 1st Dept 4-8-14

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER VISITATION WITH THE CHILDREN’S FORMER FOSTER MOTHER; A STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER VISITATION WITH A “LEGAL STRANGER” (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANTS FROM CALLING PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIANS AS WITNESSES IN THIS POLICE EXCESSIVE FORCE CASE BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE NOTICE AND THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ACCEPTED PLAINTIFF’S REDACTIONS OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS BECAUSE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO SUGGEST THEIR OWN REDACTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A DRILL FELL FROM A CO-WORKER WHO WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER; THE DRILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TETHERED TO THE CO-WORKER’S PERSON; PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ADMIT A WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, THE WITNESS’S CLAIM HE COULD NOT REMEMBER THE EVENTS WAS NOT SO DAMAGING TO THE PEOPLE’S CASE AS TO ALLOW THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES (FIRST DEPT).
“Sole Proximate Cause” Defense Not Demonstrated
COMPLAINT ALLEGING FRAUD AND RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CERTAIN CLAIMS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED AND PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE UPON MISREPRESENTATIONS WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED (FIRST DEPT).
General Language—“Disposition”—Limited in Scope by More Specific Words—“Sale or Transfer”
AN ANONYMOUS RADIO TRANSMISSION PROVIDED THE COLOR, MAKE, LOCATION AND LICENSE PLATE NUMBER OF A CAR WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CARJACKED; THE POLICE OFFICERS FORCIBLY STOPPED THE CAR BEFORE VERIFYING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” AT THE TIME OF THE STOP (FIRST DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Alleged Discriminatory Acts Did Not Have an “Impact” in New York—Therefore... Aeration Tank Constituted an Unventilated Confined Area Requiring Air Quality...