From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Travelers Insurance Companies v. Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1981
79 A.D.2d 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

January 26, 1981


In an action, inter alia, (1) to recover first-party benefits paid by plaintiff to its insureds by reason of the negligence of defendants Robinson and (2) for a declaration that a policy of insurance issued by the defendant third-party plaintiff, National Grange Mutual Insurance Company, was in effect on a particular date, the third-party defendant, Draftomatic Premium Budget Corporation, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated November 19, 1979, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and the third-party complaint is dismissed without prejudice to the respondent's right to seek recovery of the gross unearned premium that it refunded to appellant, if it is subsequently determined that the insurance policy was not effectively canceled. We agree with the determination of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in Home Mut. Ins. Co. v Broadway Bank Trust Co. ( 76 A.D.2d 24), that an insurance premium financing agency (see Banking Law, art 12-B) owes no duty of care to an insurer which would entitle the insurer to rely on the actions of the agency. "Whereas one is always under a duty not, by his act, to threaten unreasonable harm to another's person or tangible property, there must be some special relationship between the parties, to create such a duty in respect to misinformation negligently given" (1 Harper and James, Law of Torts, § 7.6, p 545). There exists no special relationship of trust between an insurance company and a premium financing agency which would support a cause of action for words negligently spoken (see White v. Guarente, 43 N.Y.2d 356, 362-363; Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N.Y. 170; Dorsey Prods. Corp. v United States Rubber Co., 21 A.D.2d 866, affd 16 N.Y.2d 925). In view of the fact that there is no special relationship between the insurer and the premium financing agency there is no duty, and therefore no liability for words negligently spoken. Our review of the record reveals that there are no triable issues of fact which would require a trial. Accordingly, summary judgment is awarded to the third-party defendant. Titone, J.P., Lazer, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Travelers Insurance Companies v. Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1981
79 A.D.2d 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Travelers Insurance Companies v. Robinson

Case Details

Full title:TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANIES, Plaintiff, v. KATHERINE ROBINSON et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 26, 1981

Citations

79 A.D.2d 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

Felician v. State Farm Ins. Co.

Furthermore, under current decisional law, the only recourse the insurer has against the premium finance…

Eichelbaum v. Douglas Ellirnan, LLC

"`Whereas one is always has a duty not, by his act, to threaten unreasonable harm to another's person or…