Fisher v. Qualico Contracting Corp.
749 N.Y.S.2d 467, 779 N.E.2d 178, 98 N.Y.2d 534 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York's CPLR 4545(c), insurance proceeds received for the replacement cost of destroyed property must be offset against a tort damages award for that same property, even when the award is measured by the diminution in market value, because both measures represent the same single category of economic loss.
Facts:
- In June 1994, the Fishers purchased a residence in Hewlett Neck, Long Island, for $1,225,000.
- The Fishers hired defendant Qualico Contracting Corp. as the general contractor for a substantial renovation, and Qualico subcontracted demolition work to codefendant Action Demolition and Container Co., Inc.
- On September 1, 1994, employees of Action Demolition negligently started a fire that destroyed the Fishers' house, garage, and landscaping.
- The Fishers had a homeowners' insurance policy that covered the actual necessary cost of replacing the home, up to a cap of $1,000,000, contingent on them rebuilding.
- The Fishers rebuilt their home, and their insurer paid them approximately $1,050,000.
- It was later determined that $862,770 of the insurance payment was specifically for the replacement cost of the home.
Procedural Posture:
- The Fishers sued Qualico and Action Demolition in New York Supreme Court (the trial court) for damages arising from negligence.
- A jury found Qualico 30% liable and Action Demolition 70% liable.
- In the damages trial, the jury determined the restoration cost of the home to be $1,330,000 and the diminution in market value to be $480,000.
- The trial court conducted a collateral source hearing pursuant to CPLR 4545(c).
- The trial court ruled that the insurance proceeds for replacement cost must be offset against the lesser measure of damages (diminution in market value), reducing that portion of the award to zero.
- The trial court entered judgment for the Fishers only for consequential damages.
- The Fishers appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The Fishers then appealed to the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York.
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 collateral source payment from an insurer for the replacement cost of a destroyed home correspond to a damages award measured by the diminution in the property's market value, thereby requiring an offset under CPLR 4545(c) to prevent a double recovery?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Kaye
Yes, a collateral source payment for replacement cost corresponds to a damages award measured by diminution in market value and must be offset. The purpose of CPLR 4545(c) is to eliminate double recoveries for the same loss. For real property damage, the proper measure of damages is the lesser of the cost of restoration or the diminution in market value. The court reasoned that these two measures are not different categories of loss but are 'simply two sides of the same coin,' both representing the single economic loss of the property itself. Therefore, insurance proceeds paid for replacement cost directly correspond to the loss of the home, regardless of which measure is used to calculate the final tort award. Allowing the Fishers to recover the diminution in market value without an offset would grant them a windfall, which is precisely what the statute was enacted to prevent. This outcome does not benefit the negligent defendant, who remains liable to the insurer through a subrogation action.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'direct correspondence' requirement for collateral source offsets under CPLR 4545(c) in real property cases. It establishes that the correspondence is between the collateral payment and the underlying category of loss (e.g., destruction of a home), not the specific label used to measure that loss in a tort award (e.g., 'replacement cost' vs. 'diminution in market value'). This precedent prevents plaintiffs from strategically framing their damages to avoid offsets and achieve a double recovery. The ruling reinforces the legislative intent to compensate plaintiffs fully for their actual losses while preventing windfalls from collateral sources.
