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.
Yochanan BULKA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered March 11, 2019, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJ Stat Ann § 56:8–1, et seq.), and his claims for punitive damages, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.
Plaintiff, a resident of New Jersey, commenced this action for breach of contract and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) when, after paying him disability benefits for two years, defendant determined after an investigation that he was no longer fully disabled and ceased paying him benefits. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's claim for punitive damages on both counts, as well as his NJCFA claim. The parties concede that New Jersey law governs.
On appeal, plaintiff abandons his claim for punitive damages in connection with his cause of action alleging breach of contract. Moreover, the complaint fails to establish a claim for punitive damages under the New Jersey Punitive Damages Act (NJ Stat Ann § 2A:15–5.9–5.17), as there is no allegation that defendant's actions were motivated by “[a]ctual malice” or accompanied by a “[w]anton and willful disregard” of resulting harm (NJ Stat Ann § 2A:15–5.10).
A claimed wrongful denial of insurance benefits is not actionable under the NJCFA (see Myska v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 440 N.J. Super 458, 484–485, 114 A.3d 761, 776–777 [2015], appeal dismissed 224 N.J. 524, 135 A.3d 144 [2016]), and the complaint, even when read in a light most favorable to plaintiff, fails to adequately allege misleading or deceitful conduct in the procurement and issuance of the policies at issue (compare Oravsky v. Encompass Ins. Co., 804 F. Supp. 2d 228, 240 [D.N.J. 2011]). Furthermore, dismissal of a claim is warranted where, as here, the opposition is based solely on conjecture and speculation as to what discovery might reveal (see Milosevic v. O'Donnell, 89 A.D.3d 628, 934 N.Y.S.2d 375 [1st Dept. 2011]).
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.
Docket No: 10843
Decided: January 23, 2020
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)