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
WITH RESPECT TO A RESIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE, INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS CAN BE SUED BY A SHAREHOLDER FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, BUT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS NOT AMENABLE TO SUIT APART FROM A SUIT AGAINST THE CORPORATION (FIRST DEPT).
YOUTHFUL OFFENDER RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THE SORA COURT (FIRST DEPT).
No Sanction for Automatic Destruction of Video Recordings of Accident Scene after 21 Days—Counsels’ Original Request for Video Recording at the Time of the Accident Was Complied With—Counsel Subsequently Asked for Six Hours of Recording Prior to the Accident—By the Time of that Request the Videotape Had Been Automatically Destroyed
PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT POSSESS THE REQUIRED NYC HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE; THE CONTRACTOR’S BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SEEKING PAYMENT FOR THE RENOVATION WORK PLAINTIFF COMPLETED WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE 1ST DEPARTMENT, OVERRULING PRECEDENT AND JOINING THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS, DETERMINED INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES NEED NOT BE NAMED IN A NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN SHE USED HER ARM TO KEEP THE ELEVATOR DOOR FROM CLOSING; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE ELEVATOR WAS IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION TWO WEEKS BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) FALLING-OBJECT CASE; BRICK WORK WAS BEING DONE ON THE BUILDING ABOVE WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING AND PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING BRICK; THERE WAS NO SAFETY NETTING TO PROTECT AGAINST FALLING OBJECTS (FIRST DEPT).
A MINOR INJURY TO ONE CHILD BY ANOTHER WHILE MOTHER WAS NAPPING NEARBY, AND A SUBSEQUENT VERBAL ARGUMENT WITH THE POLICE, DID NOT AMOUNT TO NEGLECT BY MOTHER (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...