Summary
holding that consequential damages beyond the limits of an insurance policy are generally not recoverable in actions on insurance policies because they are too speculative
Summary of this case from Harary v. Allstate Ins. Co.Opinion
April 8, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff moved to increase the ad damnum clause of her complaint to an amount beyond the liability limits of her homeowner's insurance policy for losses which are clearly not covered under that policy. She contends that, as a result of the defendant's bad faith in refusing to settle her claim for the loss of the use of her home, she has sustained a plethora of consequential damages. These include, among other things, the loss of her business, costs of refinancing her home and of defending against foreclosure actions, legal fees which were not incurred in the instant action, lost income, and miscellaneous costs for such things as postage and photocopying.
Generally, an insurer's liability is limited to the face amount of the policy, plus appropriate interest (see, Samovar of Russia Jewelry Antique Corp. v. Generali, Gen. Ins. Co., 102 A.D.2d 279, 281). Under certain circumstances, liability in excess of the face amount of the policy may be imposed on a liability insurance carrier for breach of its implied duty to act in good faith in its performance of the contract (see, Gordon v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 30 N.Y.2d 427, cert denied 410 U.S. 931). However, the plaintiff's claims here are speculative, remote, and could not have been within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the execution of this insurance contract (see, DiBlasi v. Aetna Life Cas. Ins. Co., 147 A.D.2d 93, 103). In view of the foregoing, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to increase the ad damnum clause of her complaint (see, Dolan v. Garden City Union Free School Dist., 113 A.D.2d 781, 785).
We have examined the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.