You are here: / / DEFENDANT INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE “BAD...

DEFENDANT INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE “BAD FAITH” COMPLAINT–ALLEGING A BAD FAITH FAILURE TO SETTLE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION STEMMING FROM A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT–SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer demonstrated it did not act in bad faith when it refused to settle a personal injury action. Plaintiff VanNostrand sued Froelich in an action stemming from a traffic accident and recovered a $300,000 verdict. Froelich’s insurer, defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, had refused to settle. Froelich assigned his rights in the policy to VanNostrand and they sued the insurer alleging a bad faith failure to settle. The Second Department held the insurer’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

” … [A] bad-faith plaintiff must establish that the defendant insurer engaged in a pattern of behavior evincing a conscious or knowing indifference to the probability that an insured would be held personally accountable for a large judgment if a settlement offer within the policy limits were not accepted” … . …

… [T]he evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment established … the defendant had a rational basis for concluding that a jury in the underlying action could find that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident, which would preclude her from recovery in the underlying action (see Insurance Law § 5104[a]). Specifically, the defendant monitored the plaintiff’s claim in the underlying action and, among other things, retained expert physicians to examine the plaintiff and review the MRI films of her spine. One of the defendant’s experts concluded, inter alia, that the alleged disc herniation at L5-S1 did not involve any root impingement. As far as the alleged disc herniation at C3-C4 was concerned, the defendant’s expert found no herniation and, at most, a bulge. Moreover, it was undisputed that the plaintiff returned to work within one month of the accident and did not seek recovery for lost wages. It was further undisputed that as of November 2001, two years after the accident, and at the time of trial in April 2013, the plaintiff was not taking any medication or undergoing any further treatment. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. VanNostrand v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 05550, Second Dept 10-7-20

 

You might also like
THE RELIGIOUS CEREMONY IN THIS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE IN 2005 BEFORE NEW YORK RECOGNIZED SAME SEX MARRIAGE; THE CIVIL MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE IN 2011 JUST AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE MARRIAGE EQUALITY ACT (MEA); DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HER ANSWER TO ALLEGE THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE IN 2005 (SECOND DEPT).
IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
REMOVAL OF THE CHILD FROM MOTHER’S CARE WAS NOT WARRANTED, NO SHOWING OF AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE CHILD’S LIFE OR HEALTH (SECOND DEPT).
SETTLEMENT CONFESSIONS OF JUDGMENT WERE VALID AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INFORM HIM OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILITY PLEA AND FOR FAILING TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA TO AN OFFENSE WHICH DID NOT MANDATE DEPORTATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY DEFENDANT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE PRIMA FACIE PROOF OF PROPER SERVICE PRESENTED IN THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED UPON FATHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR; FATHER’S ATTORNEY EXPLAINED FATHER’S ABSENCE AND REQUESTED AN INQUEST; AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER ENTERED UPON A PARTY’S DEFAULT BRINGS UP FOR REVIEW ONLY THE CONTESTED MATTERS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT (SECOND DEPT).
Town Board Is Not a Necessary Party In an Action Against the Town—Acts of the Town Board Under Statutory Authority Are the Acts of the Town—Court’s Power to Join a Necessary Party Sua Sponte Noted (Not Properly Exercised Here)

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

CRITERIA FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PURSUANT... SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE RESTRICTED THE RELEASE OF THE NAMES OF COMPLAINANTS...