From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Benjamin Shapiro Realty v. Kemper Nat. Ins. Cos.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 18, 2003
303 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Summary

affirming summary judgment on claims against insurance broker because there were not "any triable issue presented as to whether plaintiff had enforceable rights as a third-party beneficiary of a contract" between the insured and broker

Summary of this case from Goldsmith v. Marsh U.S. (In re GlassHouse Techs.)

Opinion

502

March 18, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about January 25, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant Tanenbaum-Harber Co. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint alleging additional causes of action against Tanenbaum-Harber Co., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Louis M. Atlas, for plaintiff-appellant.

Kenneth R. Feit, for defendants-respondents.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin, Williams, JJ.


The motion court properly held that defendant Tanenbaum-Harber Co., the insurance broker of plaintiff landlord's tenant, was under no duty to plaintiff and, accordingly, was not liable to plaintiff for negligent misrepresentation or negligence by reason of Tanenbaum's issuance of certificates of insurance representing that the tenant's insurance policy, naming plaintiff as an additional insured, contained rental coverage insurance for plaintiff's benefit, even though such coverage was not included in the policy. Plaintiff and Tanenbaum had no contractual relationship and the fact that plaintiff had contact with Tanenbaum in the course of obtaining the certificates of insurance did not give rise to the sort of relationship, i.e., one approaching that of privity, requisite to the imposition of liability for negligent misrepresentation (see Credit Alliance v. Arthur Anderson Co., 65 N.Y.2d 536). Moreover, where, as here, certificates of insurance contain disclaimers that they are for information only, they may not be used as predicates for a claim of negligent misrepresentation (see St. George v. W.J. Barney Corp., 270 A.D.2d 171; see also Am. Ref-Fuel Co. of Hempstead v. Resource Recycling, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 420, 423). Nor was any triable issue presented as to whether plaintiff had enforceable rights as a third-party beneficiary of a contract between the tenant and Tanenbaum.

Since the causes that plaintiff sought to add against Tanenbaum were plainly without merit, the motion court properly denied plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint (see Koss v. Bd. of Trustees of the Fashion Inst., 281 A.D.2d 200).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Benjamin Shapiro Realty v. Kemper Nat. Ins. Cos.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 18, 2003
303 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

affirming summary judgment on claims against insurance broker because there were not "any triable issue presented as to whether plaintiff had enforceable rights as a third-party beneficiary of a contract" between the insured and broker

Summary of this case from Goldsmith v. Marsh U.S. (In re GlassHouse Techs.)

In Benjamin Shapiro Realty Co.v Kemper Natl. Ins. Cos, supra, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the action brought by the plaintiff/landlord against its tenant's insurance broker for negligent misrepresentation, by reason of its issuance of certificates of insurance representing that the tenant's insurance policy, naming the landlord as additional insured, contained rental coverage insurance for landlord's benefit, even though such coverage was not included in the policy.

Summary of this case from Summit Constr. Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Act Abatement, LLC

In Benjamin Shapiro Realty and Superior Ice Rink, there was no dispute that the insurance broker had issued an incorrect certificate, and the Courts still held that a third party could not sue the broker for negligent misrepresentation based upon a certificate issued to its client, the insured.

Summary of this case from Tishman Constr. Corp. v. Am. Saf. Indem. Co.
Case details for

Benjamin Shapiro Realty v. Kemper Nat. Ins. Cos.

Case Details

Full title:THE BENJAMIN SHAPIRO REALTY COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KEMPER…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 18, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 45

Citing Cases

Vissas v. Simon Agency New York Inc.

This conclusion stems from language in the certificates, in particular the "disclaimers that [the…

CHARTER OAK FIRE INS. CO. v. QBE INSU. CO.

Plaintiffs allege nothing tending to support the idea of privity between Meilman and Paterno. They had no…