Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Soto v. State Farm Insurance
195 A.D.2d 992
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 1993-07-16
- Topic
- general
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this action alleging defendant’s bad faith in refusing to settle the underlying tort action within the policy limits. It is undisputed that plaintiffs have been paid the full amount of the compensatory damages awarded to them in the underlying tort action. They are not entitled, as assignees of the insured and the operator of the insured’s motor vehicle, to recover from defendant the unpaid punitive damages award assessed against the operator in the underlying tort action because " ([t]he record is devoid of any evidence that the insurer acted with malice or intent to harm the insured’ ” (DiBlasi v Aetna Life & Cas. Ins.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Soto v. State Farm Insurance. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 2 opinions
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this action alleging defendant’s bad faith in refusing to settle the underlying tort action within the policy limits. It is undisputed that plaintiffs have been paid the full amount of the compensatory damages awarded to them in the underlying tort action. They are not entitled, as assignees of the insured and the operator of the insured’s motor vehicle, to recover from defendant the unpaid punitive damages award assessed against the operator in the underlying tort action because " ([t]he record is devoid of any evidence that the insurer acted with malice or intent to harm the insured’ ” (DiBlasi v Aetna Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 147 AD2d 93, 100, quoting Kulak v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 47 AD2d 418, 421, revd on other grounds 40 NY2d 140; see also, Reifenstein v Allstate Ins. Co., 92 AD2d 715, 716-717; Catalogue Serv. v Insurance Co., 74 AD2d 837, 838).
In view of our determination, we do not address the remaining contention advanced by defendant. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Denman, P. J., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.