Bi-Economy Market, Inc. v. Harleysville Insurance

New York Court of Appeals
886 N.E.2d 127, 856 N.Y.S.2d 505, 10 N.Y.3d 187 (2008)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An insured may recover consequential damages for an insurer's breach of a commercial insurance contract if the damages, such as the collapse of a business, were a foreseeable and probable result of the breach at the time of contracting. The nature and purpose of the insurance, particularly business interruption coverage, can make such damages foreseeable.

Facts:

Bi-Economy Market, a family-owned meat market, was insured by Harleysville Insurance Company under a policy that included building, contents, and business interruption coverage for up to one year.
In October 2002, a major fire resulted in the complete loss of Bi-Economy's food inventory and heavy structural damage to its building and equipment.
Bi-Economy submitted a claim to Harleysville to cover the losses and sustain its operations.
Harleysville disputed the claim for actual damages, advancing only a portion of the funds sought for rebuilding.
Harleysville also offered to pay only seven months of Bi-Economy's lost business income claim, despite the policy providing for a full twelve months of coverage.
As a result of the alleged underpayment and delay in receiving funds, Bi-Economy Market was unable to rebuild and never resumed its business operations.

Procedural Posture:

Bi-Economy commenced an action against Harleysville in the New York Supreme Court (the trial court of first instance), seeking consequential damages for breach of contract.
Harleysville moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss Bi-Economy's cause of action for consequential damages.
The Supreme Court granted Harleysville's motion, dismissing the claim.
Bi-Economy, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court).
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the policy excluded consequential damages.
The Appellate Division granted Bi-Economy leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court).

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a commercial property insurance policy, which includes business interruption coverage, permit an insured to recover consequential damages for the collapse of its business caused by the insurer's breach of contract in failing to timely pay a claim?

Opinions:

Majority - Pigott, J.

Yes. An insured can recover consequential damages for the collapse of its business if such damages were reasonably foreseeable and contemplated by the parties when the contract was made. The court reasoned that the very purpose of business interruption insurance is to provide the insured with timely financial support to sustain business operations after a catastrophe. Therefore, it was foreseeable to Harleysville that its failure to promptly investigate and pay the claim could result in the collapse of Bi-Economy's business. Limiting damages to the policy amount plus interest would not place the non-breaching party in as good a position as it would have been had the contract been performed. The policy's exclusion for consequential 'losses' was interpreted to apply to delays caused by third parties, not consequential 'damages' arising from the insurer's own breach.

Dissenting - Smith, J.

No. The consequential damages authorized by the majority are punitive in nature and should not be recoverable for a breach of an insurance contract. The dissent argued that the majority's decision effectively overrules prior precedent that disallowed punitive damages for bad faith claim denials absent egregious, public-facing conduct. For contracts involving only the payment of money, like an insurance policy, the proper measure of damages for a breach is the amount owed plus interest. The dissent contended that allowing juries to award consequential damages for claim handling will lead to unpredictable verdicts, compelling insurers to raise premiums for all policyholders to cover the increased risk.

Analysis:

This decision significantly expands an insurer's potential liability for breach of contract beyond the policy limits. It establishes that in New York, an insurer's failure to timely pay a claim under a business policy can give rise to consequential damages, including the complete destruction of the business. This holding blurs the traditional line between contract and tort remedies by allowing damages based on the insurer's bad faith conduct under a breach of contract theory. The ruling creates a strong incentive for insurers to promptly and fairly handle claims to avoid exposure to catastrophic business losses, a departure from the older rule where liability was often capped at the policy value plus interest.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bi-Economy Market, Inc. v. Harleysville Insurance (2008)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"