You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS BREACH OF AN INSURANCE...
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS BREACH OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the punitive damages claim against defendant insurer should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was struck by a vehicle when she was in a cross-walk. She settled with the driver’s insurer, with her insurer’s consent, for $25,000. She the brought this breach of contract action against defendant insurer for $225,000, plus punitive damages for a bad-faith breach of the insurance contract:

The elements required to state a claim for punitive damages when the claim arises from a breach of contract are: (1) the defendant’s conduct must be actionable as an independent tort; (2) the tortious conduct must be of the egregious nature set forth in Walker v Sheldon [10 NY2d 401]; (3) the egregious conduct must be directed to the plaintiff; and (4) it must be part of a pattern directed at the public generally. Where a lawsuit has its genesis in the contractual relationship between the parties, the threshold task for a court considering a defendant’s motion to dismiss a demand for punitive damages is to identify a tort independent of the contract … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to allege an independent tort. There is no separate tort for bad faith refusal to comply with an insurance contract … . While an insurer may be held liable for damages to its insured for the bad faith refusal of a settlement offer … , the plaintiff here failed to state such a cause of action. …

The plaintiff has not alleged any facts from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant’s conduct constituted a gross disregard of the plaintiff’s interests. …

The plaintiff failed to allege any facts from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant’s conduct was of an egregious nature as set forth in Walker v Sheldon, such that it was morally reprehensible and of such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations … . Schlusselberg v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 03539, Second Dept 6-1-22

Practice Point: The criteria for punitive damages for breach of contract are difficult to meet. The defendant’s conduct must amount to an independent tort, be morally reprehensible, wantonly dishonest, and criminally indifferent to civil obligations. Here, those criteria were not met by the allegations of breach of an insurance contract.

 

You might also like
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO THE TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE VIOLATED RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED (1) HE WAS MISADVISED THAT HIS GUILTY PLEA WOULD NOT RESULT IN DEPORTATION AND (2), HAD HE BEEN PROPERLY ADVISED, A DECISION TO GO TO TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN RATIONAL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Loan to Grandson Was Not Made In Anticipation of the Need to Qualify for Medical Assistance
Reassessment of Improved Property Was Not an Unconstitutional Selective Assessment
Child Should Not Have Been Removed from Foster Parents in Favor of Maternal Uncle
THE JUDGE’S QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES, GUIDANCE OF THE PROSECUTION, AND OBVIOUS BIAS IN FAVOR OF THE PROSECUTION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
Criteria for Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence Causes of Action Explained
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE SUMMONS WAS NOT RECEIVED IN TIME TO DEFEND THE ACTION, AND DID NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DEFAULT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S... PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION ALLEGING THE LOBBYING ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED...