The Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court, ruled on two separate cases contemporaneously on February 19, 2008, that extra-contractual consequential damages may be awarded for an insurer's breach of a commercial property insurance policy.
The cases, Bi-Economy Market, Inc. v. Harleysville Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2008 WL 423451, 2008 N.Y. Slip. Op. 01418 (N.Y. Feb. 19, 2008) and Panasia Estates, Inc. v. Hudson Ins. Co., 2008 WL 420014, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 01419 (N.Y. Feb. 19, 2008), permit the award of consequential damages beyond the policy limits where they are the "foreseeable" and "natural and probable consequence" of a policy breach and were "within the contemplation of the parties" at the time the policy was issued.
In Bi-Economy, the insured sought consequential damages for the insurer's failure to make payment under a "Deluxe Business Owner's" policy following a fire that consumed Bi-Economy's inventory and damaged the building and machinery. The policy provided business interruption insurance for up to one year from the date of the fire. Bi-Economy sued the insurer seeking consequential damages, arguing the "complete demise of its business operation" was the result of the insurer's failure to make timely payment under the policy.
Following conventional breach of contract rules, the Court of Appeals found the extra-contractual consequential damages sought by Bi-Economy were recoverable. Under the law of New York, and most states, a breaching party is responsible for the damage that flows from the breach and that was reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was entered into. The existence of the policy's business interruption element evidenced that the insurer should have foreseen the potential for a resulting business loss in the event a claim was denied in breach of the policy. According to the Court:
The Court qualified its ruling by emphasizing the significance of the business interruption element as evidence of the insurer's awareness of the exposure for consequential losses by noting "the nature, purpose and particular circumstances of the contract known by the parties" are significant factors for determining whether consequential damages were reasonably contemplated. "Of course, proof of consequential damages cannot be speculative or conjectural."
The Dissent vigorously disagreed, declaring "the consequential damages authorized by the majority, though remedial in form are punitive in fact . . . [t]hey are not triggered as true consequential damages are, simply by a breach of contract, but only by a breach committed in bad faith."
In response, the majority explained the significant distinction between consequential and punitive damages:
The Court of Appeals' decision in Bi-Economy is the first recognition that a policy insuring "business interruption" proves the foreseeability required for an award of consequential damages stemming from an insurer's breach of the policy contract by failure to timely pay a claim, even where the policy contains an exclusion for "consequential loss."
Conversely, the Panasia Estates decision involved an insured's claim for consequential damages for non-payment of a claim under a "Builder's Risk" coverage. The insured claimed weather damage to its property, and sought direct and consequential damages for the insurer's alleged failure to properly investigate the claim and wrongful denial of coverage. Consistent with its ruling in Bi-Economy, the Court held the policy exclusion for consequential loss did not preclude recovery of consequential damages, but found a lack of proof that they were foreseeable by the insurer when the coverage was bound. The Court remanded the case for a determination of whether the consequential damages were "foreseeable."
The Court of Appeals' decisions in Bi-Economy and Panasia Estates significantly affect an insurer's extra-contractual obligation exposure in New York and may be transferable elsewhere. Underwriters can anticipate allegations of foreseeable consequential loss due to wrongful denial of claims becoming as routine as bad faith charges in coverage litigation.
If you have any questions about this Alert or would like more information, please contact James W. Carbin or any other member of the Insurance and Reinsurance Practice Group, or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.
This article is for general information and does not include full legal analysis of the matters presented. It should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The description of the results of any specific case or transaction contained herein does not mean or suggest that similar results can or could be obtained in any other matter. Each legal matter should be considered to be unique and subject to varying results. The invitation to contact the authors or attorneys in our firm is not a solicitation to provide professional services and should not be construed as a statement as to any availability to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which such attorney is not permitted to practice.
Duane Morris LLP, one of the 100 largest law firms in the world, is a full-service firm of more than 650 lawyers. In addition to legal services, Duane Morris has independent affiliates employing approximately 100 professionals engaged in other disciplines. With offices in major markets in the United States and internationally, Duane Morris represents clients across the U.S. and around the world.