PANASIA ESTATES INC v. HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY (2007)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

PANASIA ESTATES, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: April 17, 2007

TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, FRIEDMAN, WILLIAMS, SWEENY, JJ.

White Fleischner & Fino, LLP, New York (Nancy Davis Lyness of counsel), for appellant. Peckar & Abramson, P.C., New York (Michael S. Zicherman of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered July 24, 2006, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment only to the extent of precluding plaintiff from asserting any claims for legal fees incurred in the prosecution of this action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An insured may recover foreseeable damages, beyond the limits of its policy, for breach of a duty to investigate, bargain for and settle claims in good faith (Acquista v. New York Life Ins. Co., 285 A.D.2d 73, 730 N.Y.S.2d 272 [2001] ). The court's denial of defendant's application to dismiss plaintiff's claims for consequential damages from the alleged breach of such a duty was proper. Defendant has not shown that the proffered exclusion for “consequential loss” was an applicable provision under this policy. “Consequential loss” and “consequential damages” are not synonymous, as suggested by defendant.

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them without merit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network