Summary
This Appellate Division decision affirms the Supreme Court's dismissal of a defendant's cross-claims against a life insurance company pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). The court held that the appellant failed to establish privity to sustain a breach of contract claim based on a prior stipulation, and his allegations regarding improper notice of policy lapse were conclusory. Additionally, the court found that claims for breach of the implied duty of good faith were abandoned on appeal, and arguments under Insurance Law § 3204 were improperly raised for the first time in opposition papers.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the cross‑claims against Massachusetts Mutual should be dismissed under CPLR 3211(a)(7) for lack of factual specificity and because Massachusetts Mutual was not a party to the stipulation
- Whether the alleged breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss
Holdings
- The cross‑claims are dismissed because the pleading fails to allege facts linking Massachusetts Mutual to the stipulation and contains conclusory allegations lacking factual specificity.
Key quotations
“"[C]onclusory allegations—claims consisting of bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity—are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss" (Lockwood v CBS Corp., 219 AD3d 1326, 1327).” (at 1)
“"The essential elements of a breach of contract cause of action are 'the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant's breach of his or her contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach'" (Canzona v Atanasio, 118 AD3d 837, 838‑839).” (at 1)
Factual background
Anthony Pinkesz and Joel Wertzberger were joint owners of a life‑insurance policy issued by Massachusetts Mutual. In 2018 they stipulated that the policy be split into two separate policies, each to be designated by the respective parties. Wertzberger later filed cross‑claims against Massachusetts Mutual alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith, and other theories.
Procedural history
The plaintiff and appellant were joint beneficiaries of a life‑insurance policy. After a stipulation to split the policy, the appellant filed cross‑claims against Massachusetts Mutual. The trial court dismissed the cross‑claims pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). The appellant appealed.