You are here: / / INSURANCE LAW 3105 DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE COMMON-LAW PROOF REQUIREMENTS...
, ,

INSURANCE LAW 3105 DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE COMMON-LAW PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THIS ACTION BY AN INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined that plaintiff Ambac, which insured residential mortgage-backed securities issued by defendant Countrywide, was required to prove all the elements of common-law fraudulent inducement and Insurance Law 3105 did not dispense with those proof requirements:

We agree with Countrywide that Ambac is required to prove all of the elements of its fraudulent inducement claim, including justifiable reliance and loss causation. The elements of a fraud cause of action are long-settled. To establish fraud, a plaintiff must show “a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by [the] defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury” … . * * *

​

There is no merit to Ambac’s contention that Insurance Law § 3105 dispenses with the common-law requirement of proving justifiable reliance and loss causation. Nor can that statute be used affirmatively as a basis to recover monetary damages. Insurance Law § 3105 provides that a material misrepresentation “shall avoid [a] contract of insurance” and “defeat recovery thereunder” (Insurance Law § 3105[b][1]).* * *

Cases applying Insurance Law § 3105 arise in the context of either a declaratory judgment action by an insurer seeking rescission of an insurance policy or an insurer asserting a defense to an insured’s claim for payment under the policy … . Here, Ambac seeks neither to rescind the policies, which are unconditional and irrevocable, nor to defeat a claim by an insured for payment. Instead, Ambac seeks to assert Insurance Law § 3105 as an affirmative claim seeking monetary damages. Under these circumstances, Insurance Law § 3105 is not applicable. Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03919, 1st Dept 5-16-17

 

FRAUD (INSURANCE LAW 3105 DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE COMMON-LAW PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THIS ACTION BY AN INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES)/INSURANCE LAW (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, INSURANCE LAW 3105 DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE COMMON-LAW PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THIS ACTION BY AN INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES)/SECURITIES  (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, INSURANCE LAW 3105 DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE COMMON-LAW PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THIS ACTION BY AN INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (INSURANCE LAW 3105 DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE COMMON-LAW PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THIS ACTION BY AN INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES)

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (FIRST DEPT).
Journalist Deemed “Limited Public Figure.”
Taxi Owners Not Entitled to Damages After Ruling by NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (Which Was Alleged to Have Damaged the Taxi Owners in the Amount of Over $15 Million) Was Found Arbitrary and Capricious
THE DEFENDANT HOTEL BOOKING SERVICE, AGODA, COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE IN PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE HOTEL; AGODA’S TERMS OF USE LIMITED LIABILITY TO THE BOOKING SERVICES AND EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY AT THE HOTEL (FIRST DEPT). ​
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED COMPUTER, HOWEVER ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY.
PETITIONER, IN THIS JUDICIARY LAW 509 PROCEEDING, CAN NOT COMPEL THE COMMISSIONER OF JURORS TO REVEAL THE RESPONDENT’S ADDRESS AND DATES OF JURY SERVICE IN ORDER TO IMPEACH RESPONDENT’S TESTIMONY THAT HE RESIDED IN PETITIONER’S BUILDING IN 2008 AND 2009 AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO LOFT LAW PROTECTION UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW (FIRST DEPT).
THE BATSON RECONSTRUCTION HEARING, HELD AFTER THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF AN ADEQUATE RECORD FOR APPEAL, WAS ITSELF DEFICIENT, THE ORIGINAL PROSECUTOR DID NOT TESTIFY AND THE NOTES OF THE ORIGINAL PROSECUTOR WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE COURT, CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
WHERE (1) THE DISPUTE IS ABOUT WHETHER THE TENANT IS OBLIGATED TO REMOVE PROPERTY FROM THE PREMISES, (2) THE TENANT TIMELY SURRENDERS THE PREMISES, AND (3), THE LEASE IS SILENT ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF RENT AFTER THE TERM OF THE LEASE, USE AND OCCUPANCY DAMAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE LANDLORD (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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE... FAILURE TO TIE OFF LANYARD WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S...