From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hebert v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 26, 1986
124 A.D.2d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

November 26, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Montgomery County (Doran, J.).


In a contract action to recover first-party benefits from his no-fault insurance carrier, plaintiff in his complaint, as amplified by a bill of particulars, seeks punitive damages. Defendant decided not to pay plaintiff, who some three weeks after undergoing surgery for a herniated disc on the right side was involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in left shoulder and neck pain, giving rise to plaintiff's no-fault claim. Plaintiff charges this decision was inspired by malice and bad faith, primarily because defendant, acting through a claims adjuster who lacked medical training and contrary to the opinion of plaintiff's medical experts, concluded plaintiff was not disabled due to the auto accident and refused to pay him benefits for lost wages he sustained. Defendant's motion to dismiss the punitive damage claim for failure to state a cause of action was denied, prompting this appeal. We reverse.

Punitive damages may be recovered even though only private rights are involved (see, Keen v Keen, 113 A.D.2d 964, 965-966, lv dismissed 67 N.Y.2d 646). However, they are not awardable for an isolated transaction incident to a legitimate business, such as a breach of an insurance contract, even a breach committed willfully and without justification; accordingly, even if the allegations of the complaint herein are proven, a punitive damage award would be unwarranted (see, Home Ins. Co. v Karantonis, 124 A.D.2d 368; Marsch v Massachusetts Indem. Life Ins. Co., 101 A.D.2d 952, 953, lv dismissed 63 N.Y.2d 769). Furthermore, to recover on account of defendant's purported bad faith, plaintiff was obliged to make an extraordinary showing of a disingenuous or dishonest failure by defendant to carry out its contract (see, Gordon v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 30 N.Y.2d 427, 437, cert denied 410 U.S. 931; see also, Royal Globe Ins. Co. v Chock Full O'Nuts, 86 A.D.2d 315, lv dismissed 58 N.Y.2d 800). That showing was not made.

Order reversed, on the law, without costs, motion granted and plaintiff's claim for punitive damages dismissed. Mahoney, P.J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hebert v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 26, 1986
124 A.D.2d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Hebert v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:DONALD E. HEBERT, Respondent, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 26, 1986

Citations

124 A.D.2d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
508 N.Y.S.2d 710

Citing Cases

Tate v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

The remaining question is whether plaintiffs may be entitled to recover punitive damages at all (see,…

Salka v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.

This court has only recently reiterated that "punitive damages are not available for an isolated transaction…