From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Ideal Mutual Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 13, 1991
174 A.D.2d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Summary

finding that in light of the parties' release agreement there was no justiciable controversy

Summary of this case from Park Union Condo. v. 910 Union St., LLC

Opinion

June 13, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, J.).


This is a declaratory judgment action brought by plaintiff Stony Brook School against Ideal Mutual Insurance Company (now in liquidation) and the other defendants, known as the "Extra-Curricular School Liability/Lifetime Medical Plan" (the "insurance plan"), seeking a determination that Stony Brook should be afforded insurance coverage for an underlying personal injury claim under a policy purportedly issued to it by Ideal. The insurance plan, which is conceded for purposes of this appeal to have been in effect when a Stony Brook student named John Pierce was injured during a football game, provided $5 million excess liability coverage to Stony Brook or, alternatively, upon waiver by the injured party of any liability claims against Stony Brook, lifetime medical and rehabilitative expenses to the injured person.

At a hearing held before a Referee it was revealed that Stony Brook's primary liability insurer had paid $640,834.75, an amount within its coverage, to Pierce and his parents "in full and final settlement of all claims" against Stony Brook except for any rights the Pierces might have against the insurance plan. The release agreement also provided that the first $640,834.75 of any monies recovered by the Pierces under the insurance plan would be paid to Stony Brook or its designee. Significantly, the Pierces filed their own claim against the liquidator of Ideal under the insurance plan, a matter which was not before the Referee.

The Referee concluded that in view of the release agreement there was no justiciable controversy for the court to determine pursuant to CPLR 3001. We agree. As noted in a leading treatise, "the courts are not empowered to render advisory opinions, or determine abstract, moot, hypothetical, remote or academic questions." (3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶ 3001.03.) Moreover, the plaintiff must have standing, i.e. a "legally protectible interest, that is in direct issue or jeopardy, in order to invoke the remedy of declaratory judgment in the area of private litigation." (Id., at ¶ 3001.04.)

Stony Brook has been released from any claims against it by the Pierces, and only the injured student has a right to recover lifetime medical benefits under the insurance plan, a right which the Pierces are pursuing by separate claim in the liquidation proceeding of Ideal. Whether the insurance plan was in effect when John Pierce was injured, and whether he is entitled to lifetime medical benefits under the plan after having accepted $640,834.75 in "full and final settlement of all claims" against Stony Brook, are matters which no longer concern Stony Brook, and which must be determined in the proceeding instituted by the Pierces. Accordingly, the Referee's report is confirmed in all respects, the motion and cross-motion by the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint are granted, and the complaint is dismissed. We find no basis for the imposition of sanctions or the recovery of attorneys' fees from Stony Brook.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin, Ross and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Ideal Mutual Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 13, 1991
174 A.D.2d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

finding that in light of the parties' release agreement there was no justiciable controversy

Summary of this case from Park Union Condo. v. 910 Union St., LLC
Case details for

Matter of Ideal Mutual Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Liquidation of IDEAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. STONY…

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

Date published: Jun 13, 1991

Citations

174 A.D.2d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
571 N.Y.S.2d 18

Citing Cases

Doukas v. Ballard

The purported joint venture was dissolved by operation of law when Ballard acquired patents for the…

Village of Greenport v. Manning Plumbing & Heating Corp.

ARA's insurance carrier, the defendant QBE Insurance Company ("QBE"), cross moves for summary judgment…