Manjit L. Multani v. Castlepoint Insurance Company
This case involved an insurance claim for alleged fire damage to a home that was configured as a five-family dwelling, but insured as a one- or two-family dwelling. Multani commenced this action to recover damages for breach of contract and later amended the complaint to add causes of action alleging bad faith and a violation of General Business Law § 349.
The Trial Court granted Castlepoint summary judgment and now the Appellate Division, Second Department has affirmed that decision. The court held that the insurance policy unequivocally limited coverage to losses incurred on the “residence premises,” which was defined as either a one-family dwelling or a two-family dwelling, and the failure to establish a potential defense of material misrepresentation did not preclude an award of summary judgment to Castlepoint as it validly denied coverage due to configuration of the property.
Additionally, the valid denial of coverage based on the configuration of the property as something other than a “residence premises” does not have a broad impact on consumers at large, warranting dismissal of Multani’s claim that General Business Law § 349 was violated.
Finally, the court held that the cause of action alleging bad faith is duplicative of the cause of action alleging breach of contract and that there is no separate tort for bad faith refusal to comply with an insurance contract.
Kevin Buckley and Rachel Horzempa Winship represented Castlepoint Insurance Company.
To read the Court’s decision, click here: Decision – Multani