Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
David TERRY, Sr., As Father and Natural Guardian of David Terry, II, Appellant, v. FARMER'S INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA, Respondent, et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff's son, 14-year-old David Terry, II, was allegedly injured when he was struck by a snowmobile operated by defendant Craig Bolibruzck. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking judgment declaring that coverage for the injury to plaintiff's son is provided by a homeowner's policy issued by defendant Farmer's Insurance Company of Arizona (Farmer's) to Bolibruzck's mother, defendant Peggy Wagner.
Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Farmer's to dismiss the complaint. Because no personal injury action has been commenced to recover damages against defendants Bolibruzck and Wagner, the declaratory judgment action is premature (see, Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hertz Corp., 119 A.D.2d 612, 613, 500 N.Y.S.2d 781; Soto v. MVAIC, 23 A.D.2d 728, 257 N.Y.S.2d 825). Further, there is no basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Farmer's, an Arizona corporation with its principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona. Farmer's is not authorized to do business in New York; has no office in New York; has no agents, employees or representatives in New York; and does not write policies for any type of insurance coverage in New York. The policy at issue was issued to Wagner, an Arizona resident, to cover her home in Tempe, Arizona. Thus, jurisdiction cannot be predicated upon Farmer's transacting business or contracting to provide goods or services in this State (see, CPLR 302[a][1]; Wiesner v. Emma Laing Stevens Hosp., 65 Misc.2d 102, 103-104, 316 N.Y.S.2d 876). Further, the alleged breach of the insurance contract by Farmer's does not constitute a tortious act and will not support the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(2) or (3) (see, Amigo Foods Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank-N.Y., 39 N.Y.2d 391, 396, 384 N.Y.S.2d 124, 348 N.E.2d 581; Pride Labs. v. Athea Labs., 54 A.D.2d 976, 977, 388 N.Y.S.2d 668).
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 07, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)