From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Continental Ins. v. Tollman-Hundley Hotels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 9, 1996
223 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

January 9, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).


As there was no genuine dispute that plaintiff performed its obligations under the insurance contracts with respect to the relevant audit premiums, any error in the trial court's failure to charge the jury on the issue of performance was harmless. Indeed, the record demonstrates that defendant, at trial, essentially challenged only $185,000 of the $1,370,000 bill for audit premiums submitted to it by plaintiff. The trial court also properly instructed the jury that plaintiff had the burden to prove its entitlement to the audit premiums claimed to be due.

While certain claims handling instructions were to govern operations within plaintiff's company, they were neither made part of the parties' agreements, nor adopted as a separate contract between the parties. Accordingly, the trial court properly prohibited argument contrary to this evidence. We note the trial court did permit the instructions to be admitted into evidence so that defendant could argue that plaintiff's alleged departures from the instructions evinced a failure to act reasonably.

The trial court properly followed the New York standard that in order for defendant to recover on its counterclaim for plaintiff's alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing in the handling of insurance claims, defendant had to prove not only that plaintiff materially "mishandled" the claims, but that defendant also incurred damages as a result thereof ( see, Canstar v Jones Constr. Co., 212 A.D.2d 452).

Since the record demonstrates that the hotel in which the Blankenship claim arose was covered by the insurance policy in issue, plaintiff was liable for $250,000 in retrospective premiums as to such claim.

We find the record, as a whole, shows that the trial court acted even-handedly under the circumstances presented ( cf., Schaffer v Kurpis, 177 A.D.2d 379).

We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Continental Ins. v. Tollman-Hundley Hotels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 9, 1996
223 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Continental Ins. v. Tollman-Hundley Hotels

Case Details

Full title:CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. TOLLMAN-HUNDLEY HOTELS…

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

Date published: Jan 9, 1996

Citations

223 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
636 N.Y.S.2d 319

Citing Cases

Burlington Ins. Co. v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

To recover for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing in handling of insurance claims, the insured…