You are here: / / IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL...
, , , ,

IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a partial dissent, determined certain aspects of defendant Countrywide’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff insurer, Ambac, stemming from residential mortgage backed securities issued by Countrywide, were properly granted. Ambac’s argument that it need not demonstrate justifiable reliance or loss causation in support of its fraudulent inducement cause of action was rejected, as was Ambac’s argument that it was entitled to relief over and above that specified in the sole remedy clause, as well as attorney’s fees:

Public policy reasons support the justifiable reliance requirement. Where a “sophisticated business person or entity . . . claims to have been taken in,” the justifiable reliance rule “serves to rid the court of cases in which the claim of reliance is likely to be hypocritical” … . Excusing a sophisticated party such as a monoline financial guaranty insurer from demonstrating justifiable reliance would not further the policy underlying this “venerable rule.”

Likewise, there is no merit to Ambac’s argument that it need not show loss causation. Loss causation is a well-established requirement of a common law fraudulent inducement claim for damages. * * *

Ambac’s complaint fails to include breach of contract allegations beyond those that fall under the sole remedy provision … , and accordingly Ambac is limited to the repurchase protocol as the potential remedy for those claims. * * *

In New York, “the prevailing litigant ordinarily cannot collect . . . attorneys’ fees from its unsuccessful opponents. . . . Attorneys’ fees are treated as incidents of litigation, rather than damages. . . . The exception is when an award is authorized by agreement between the parties or by statute or court rule” … . … [T]his Court [has] held that a court “should not infer a party’s intention to waive the benefit of the rule unless the intention to do so is unmistakably clear from the language of the promise … . Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04686, CtApp 6-27-18

​INSURANCE LAW (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))/FRAUD  (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))/CONTRACT LAW  (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))/SECURITIES  (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES  (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))/ATTORNEY’S FEES (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))

You might also like
ARGUING FOR LENIENCY IN SENTENCING DOES NOT PRESERVE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SENTENCING WAS VINDICTIVE (CT APP).
A GENERIC NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN A CONTRACT DOES NOT TRANSFORM ALL NEW YORK STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS INTO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, HERE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTRACT DID NOT MENTION BOND REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LIEN LAW AND THE CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION COULD NOT BE USED TO READ THE LIEN LAW REQUIREMENT INTO THE CONTRACT (CT APP).
a follow the settlement clause in a reinsurance treaty requires deference to the allocation of reinsurance proceeds by the insured, but does not render the allocation immune from scrutiny for reasonableness.
THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT CHARGING DEFENDANT WITH “FAILURE TO PROVIDE NECESSARY SUSTENANCE” FOR A DOG, AN A MISDEMEANOR, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY NONHEARSAY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS; INSTRUMENT DISMISSED (CT APP).
THE LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE ASSAILANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE WAS NOT AN INTRUDER AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE, THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTED (CT APP).
DIRECT APPEAL CANNOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE APPELLANT’S INVOLUNTARY DEPORTATION.
In the Absence of an Express Agreement that the Plaintiff Was Entitled to a Commission Upon the Sale of Assets by the Principal, the Agreement Created an Exclusive Agency, which Merely Precluded the Principal from Hiring Another Agent, but Did Not Create, in the Agent, an Exclusive Right to Sell
GRANDPARENTS, WITH WHOM THE CHILD HAD RESIDED FOR TEN YEARS, HAD STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY OF THE CHILD; THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE 24-MONTH SEPARATION OF PARENT AND CHILD REQUIRED BY THE “GRANDPARENT STANDING” STATUTE BE CHARACTERIZED BY A COMPLETE LACK OF CONTACT BETWEEN PARENT AND CHILD.

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

DEFENDANT’S SIGNING A WRITTEN WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO AN INDICTMENT BY... QUALIFIED, NOT ABSOLUTE, PRIVILEGE APPLIES WHEN THE SUBJECT OF THE ALLEGED DEFAMATION...