Rocanova v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States
634 N.E.2d 940, 612 N.Y.S.2d 339, 83 N.Y.2d 603 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To state a claim for punitive damages in an action for breach of an insurance contract, the plaintiff must establish that the insurer engaged in egregious tortious conduct directed at the insured, and that this conduct was part of a pattern of similar conduct directed at the public generally. New York's Insurance Law § 2601, which prohibits unfair claim settlement practices, does not create a private cause of action.
Facts:
- In the first case, Mark Rocanova purchased a disability income policy from Equitable Life Assurance Society and later increased his coverage.
- Shortly after the increase, Rocanova filed a claim for 'dry eye syndrome'.
- Equitable rescinded the policy, asserting that Rocanova was already disabled before the increased coverage became effective and had misrepresented his income.
- Rocanova alleged this was part of a fraudulent pattern, citing 124 other disputes between Equitable and its policyholders.
- In the second case, Marsel Mirror & Glass Products purchased an insolvency risk policy from National Union Fire Insurance Company.
- When a covered buyer filed for bankruptcy, Marsel filed a claim for approximately $1.78 million.
- The insurer informed Marsel that payment would be delayed for about two years.
- Facing a long delay, Marsel accepted a $1.5 million settlement and signed a release waiving all future claims against the insurer regarding the policy.
Procedural Posture:
- In Rocanova, plaintiff sued Equitable in New York Supreme Court (trial court). The trial court dismissed several causes of action but denied Equitable's motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim and a claim under Insurance Law § 2601.
- Equitable, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department, which unanimously affirmed the trial court's decision allowing the punitive damages claim to proceed.
- In Marsel, plaintiff sued defendants in New York Supreme Court. The trial court dismissed some causes of action but denied defendants' motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim.
- Defendants, as appellants, appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department, which affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the punitive damages claim.
- In both cases, the Appellate Division certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, asking whether its order was properly made.
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 policyholder state a claim for punitive damages by alleging an insurer's breach of contract was part of a broader pattern of bad-faith conduct, and does New York Insurance Law § 2601 create a private cause of action for such conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Ciparick, J.
No. A policyholder does not state a claim for punitive damages merely by alleging a pattern of bad-faith conduct, nor does Insurance Law § 2601 create a private right to sue. Punitive damages are intended to vindicate public rights, not to remedy private contractual wrongs. To recover punitive damages in a contract action, a plaintiff must prove three things: 1) the defendant's conduct is actionable as an independent tort; 2) the tortious conduct is egregious, demonstrating 'wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations'; and 3) the conduct was part of a pattern directed at the public generally. Rocanova's tort claims were dismissed, leaving only a breach of contract claim, which cannot support punitive damages. His allegation of 124 other disputes is legally insignificant without an underlying egregious tort committed against him personally. The court clarified that Insurance Law § 2601 is a regulatory statute for administrative enforcement and does not create a private right of action for policyholders. Marsel's claims are barred by the general release it signed. Since Marsel failed to establish a valid basis for setting aside the release (such as fraud or duress), its underlying claims fail, and the 'parasitic' claim for punitive damages cannot survive on its own.
Analysis:
This decision significantly heightened the pleading standard for punitive damages in first-party insurance cases in New York. By definitively closing the door on a private right of action under Insurance Law § 2601, the court channeled bad-faith claims through the narrow and difficult-to-prove framework of common-law fraud. The ruling reinforces the distinction between a breach of contract, even one committed in bad faith, and the kind of egregious, tortious conduct aimed at the public that warrants punitive damages. Consequently, it has made it much more difficult for policyholders to leverage the threat of punitive damages in settlement negotiations over claim disputes.
