Custom Printers of Guilderland, Inc. v Metlife, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Custom Printers of Guilderland, Inc. v Metlife, Inc. 2018 NY Slip Op 33892(U) January 17, 2018 Supreme Court, Albany County Docket Number: 906836-16 Judge: Richard M. Platkin Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2018 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 INDEX NO. 906836-16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2018 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COMMERCIAL DIVISION . COUNTY OF ALBANY . CUSTOM PRINTERS OF GUILDERLAND, INC., Plaintiff, -agairist- DECISION . AND \ ORDER METLIFE, INC., METROPOLITAN LIFE' INSURANCE COMPANY, METLIFEREINSURANCE COMPANY OF CHARLESTON, METROPOLITAN TOWER LIFE INSURANCE . COMPANY, AND SEAN T BYRNE dba STB ASSOCIATES, Defendants. Index Nq. 906836-16 (Judge Richard M. Platkin, Presiding) APPEARANCES: TOWNE, RYAN &_PARTNERS, P.C .. Attorneys for Plaintiff . (Susan F. Bartko\\'.ski, of counsel) P.O. Box 15072 . 450 New Karner Road Albany, New York 12212 I'-' ~-1:• ;-- c;::i (.-:;::, OJ 3:... L.. ~; -- -;:.,~~~-,, -~ 0 c-: _.. ,,, CJ HODGSON Russ LLP Attorneys for Defendants MetLife, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance· Company, MetLife Reinsurance Company of Charleston and · Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company (Catherine Grantier Cooley, of counsel) The Guaranty Building 140 Pearl Street, Suite mo Buffalo, New York 14202 1 of 10 .t.:- _, -0 _.,.. -< ,-- \--;1 -;o ,..,,~. .;p-~M ~Yi\ ;:_:• I'.) C-) ~i1 -~ ·-. (.~ r·l~-:~ c-=-""j" r~--~ i.l .. ., [*FILED: 2] ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2018 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 ' ', INDEX NO. 906836-16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2018 Hon. Richard M. Platkin; A.J.S.C. In this commercial dispute regarding the procurement of a life insurance policy and coverage thereunder, defendants MetLife, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, MetLife Reinsurance Company of Charleston and Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company (collectively "the MetLife Defendants") move pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(l) and (7) for the dismissal of the claims asserted in the Amended Verified Compiaint ("Complaint") filed by plaintiff Custom Printers of Guilderland, Inc .. ("Custom Printers") and for the dismissal of the cross claim alleged by defendant Sean T. Byrne d/b/a STB Associates ("STB"). Specifically, the MetLife Defendants seek the dismissal of: (a) plaintiffs first cause of action as against MetLife, Inc., MetLife Reinsurance Company of Charleston ("MetLife Reinsurance~') and Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company ("Metropolitan Tower"); (b) plaintiffs third cause of action, in its entirety; and (c) STB's cross claim as against MetLife, . Inc~, MetLife Reinsurance and Metropolitan Tower. The MetLife Defendants also seek an award of attorneys' fees and c·osts. Custom Printers opposes the motion, except to the extent that it seeks dismissal of MetLife Reinsurance and Metropolitan Tower from the case. STB has not opposed the motion .. BACKGROUND The Complaint alleges thatin Ju!y 2014, Custom Printers sought to purchase a life insurance policy for Joyce A. Ragone, orie of its key individuals, and it requested the assistance of STB, which acted as an insurance broker on behalf of the MetLife Defendants (~~ 18-20). Plaintiff submitted an application for a policy on Ragone's life on or about August 4, 2014 21). 2 2 of 10 (~ [*FILED: 3] ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2018 01:33 PM .. NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 ' INDEX NO. 906836-16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2018 According to the Complaint, "[o]n or about October 30, 2014 and again on November 10, 2014, MetLife approved [the] application" and, on or about November 13, 2014, "issued [a] . . policy in the minimum face amount of [$100,000] naming Ragone as Insured, [Custom Printers] as Owner and the U.S. Small Business Administration c/o NYBDC as Beneficiary and with a policy date of October 11,-2014 (hereinafter 'the Policy')" November 15, 2014 (iJ 23-24)._1 Ragone passed away on (iJ 25), and, as of that date, STB had not yet delivered the Policy, despite representing to plaintiff that it had been_issued (ii 26). J "On December 11, 2014, [Custom Printers] provided the initial premium payment to MetLife," which it allegedly accepted (iii! 27..:29). STB notified "MetLife" of Ragone's death on or about January 2, 2015, and "MetLife" allegedly informed STB that plaintiffs claim "would be covered as long as the pr~mium had been paid" (iii! 30-31). However, on January 12, 2015, "MetLife" attempted to refund $194 to plaintiff, allegedly for an ov.erpayment of premium (ii 32). Then, on February 4, 2015, "MetLife" attempted to refund a $574 premium payment, allegedly at plaintiffs request, although plaintiff denies ever requesting a refund (iii! 33-34). On February 20, 2015, Custom Printers submitted "a completed MetLife Individual Life/Death Claim form with supporting documentation,"' to which "MetLife" allegedly failed to respond (iJiJ 35-36).The Complaint sets forth three causes of action: (1) breach of contract against the - ·MetLife Defendants, alleging that "[p ]laintiff pefformed the conditions· and terms of the Policy" but "MetLife has refused to pay the insurance proceeds;" (2) insurance broker malpractice 1 The Policy allegedly was to be used as security for plaintiffs loan with the U.S. Small Business Administration (if 22). 3 3 of 10 [*FILED: 4] ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2018 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 INDEX NO. 906836-16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2018 against STB; and (3) "wrongful delay or denial of claim" against the MetLife Defendants (iii! 37-51). Plaintiff seeks damages of $100,000, plus interest and costs. The MetLife Defendants argue that plaintiffs first cause of action for breach of contract and STB' s cross claim must be dismissed as against MetLife, Inc., MetLife Reinsurance and Metropolitan Tower because the documentary evidence conclusively establishes that these d~fendants were not parties to the Policy. The MetLife Defendants also seek dismissal of the third cause of action in its entirety, arguing that the claim is predicated upon the alleged breach . . of the Policy and does not allege any duty independent of the alleged contractual. relationship. Finally, the I\:fetLife Defendants seek an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. DISCUSSION On a, motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the Court '"must accept as true the 'facts as ·alleged in the complaint and submissions in opposition to the motion, accord plaintiffl] the benefit of every possible favorable inference and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory'" (White box Concentrated Convertible Arbitrage Partners, L.P. v Superior Well Servs., Inc., 20 NY3d 59, 63 [2012], quoting Sokoloff v Harriman Estates Dev. Corp., 96 NY2d 409, 414 [2001]). Dismissal is warranted under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) if documentary evidence conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law (see Beal Sav. Bank v Som~er, 8 NY3d 318, 324 [2007]; Leon v'Martinez, 84 NY2d 83,' 88 [1994]). The MetLife Defendants argue that plaintiffs first cause of ac!ion for breach of contract must be dismissed as against MetLife, Inc., MetLife.Reinsurance and Metropolitan Tower because the documentary evidence conclusively establishes that none of these entities were parties to the Policy. "The essential elements of a cause of action ... for breach of contract are the existence of a contract, the plaintiffs performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant's 4 4 of 10 [*FILED: 5] ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2018 01:33 PM • •1· NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 INDEX NO. 906836-16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2018 ·breach of its contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach" (WFE Ventures, Inc. y Mills, 139 AD3d 1157, 1160 [3d Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). "[I]t is axiomatic that if a party is not a party to a contract, it cannot be sued for its breach unless there is a separate basis for the non-parties' liability such as piercing the corporate veil or ... a manifestation of an intent to be bound" (MBIA Ins. Corp. v Royal Bank of Can., 28 • .J Misc 3d 1225[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51490[U], *28 [Sup Ct, Westchester County 2010, Scheinkman, J.] [collecting cases]; see Delaware County v Leatherstocking Healthcare, LLC, 110 AD3d 1211, 1213 [3d Dept 2013]; Birch v McGhee, 79 AD3d 1296, 1297 [3d Dept 2010]; Pacific Carlton Dev. Corp. v 752 Pac., LLC, 62 AD3d 677, 678 [2d Dept 2009]). As correctly observed by the MetLife Defendants, the Complaint defines "MetLife" to include all of the MetLife Defendants (~ 20), and the factual allegations of the Co~plaint repeatedly refer to '"MetLife" w~thout distinguishing among the four separate entities (see e.g. ~~ 23-24, 39-40). The Policy, however, Life Insurance . states that it. was issued by Metropolitan . . Company ("MLIC") and is "a legal contract between [plaintiff] and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company" (Som Aff., Ex. 2). In addition, the Policy and attached Endorsements are all signed by "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company," and there is no reference anywhere in the Policy to MetLife, Inc., MetLife Reinsurance or Metropolitan Tower. Further confirmation that plaintiffs contractual relationship was solely with MLIC is found in the Life Express Order Ticket, signed by Ragone on July 18, 2014 (see Som Aff., Ex. 1). The Court therefore concludes that the proof adduced by the MetLife Defendants conclusively establishes that MetLife; Inc., MetLife Reinsurance and Metropolitan Tower were not parties to the Policy. Given the clear and unambiguous language of the written instrument sued ·upon by plaintiff and in the abs.ence of any allegations of alter-ego liability, veil piercing or 5 5 of 10 [*FILED: 6] ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2018 01:33 PM ... NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 INDEX NO. 906836-16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2018 other basis upon which to·impose liability on these non-contracting parties, the first cause of action must be dismissed as against MetLife, Inc., MetLife Reinsurance and Metropolitan Tower . (see SUS, Inc. v St. Paul Travelers Group, 75 AD3d 740, 742-743 [3d Dept 2010]). 2 For the same reasons, and in the abs~nce of any opposition from STB, the cross claim alleging contractual and common-law)ndemnity must be dismissed as against MetLife, Inc., MetLife Reinsurance and Metropolitan Tower The MetLife Defendants next contend that the third cause of action should be dismissed in ~ts entirety for failure to state .a claim. The cause ·of action, which seeks damages for the 1 I "wrongful delay or denial of claim," alleges that "MetLife failed to provide written notice of its reasons(s) for denial of the claim under .the Policy in a reasonably timely manner" (Compl., ~ 50 · [emphasis a,dded]). To the extent that this claim is predicated upon a breach of the Policy, it merely restates the first cause of action and, therefore, must be dismissed as agairist MetLife, Inc., MetLife Reinsurance and Metropolitan Tower. ,. Insofar as the cause of action purports to assert a claim sounding in fort, plaintiff must · allege "the violation of a legal duty independent .of the contract"· (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 389-390 [1987];-see Quail Ridge Assoc. v Chemical Bank, 162 · AD2d 917, 919 [3d Dept 1990], Iv dismissed 76 NY2q 936 [1990]). W~ile the Complaint does not include such allegations, plaintiffs opposition to the motion ·asserts that MetLife, Inc. and I 2 In its oppos·ition, plaintiff concedes that the contractual cause of action should be dismissed as against MetLife Reinsurance and Metropolitan Tower. To the extent that plaintiff relies on exhibits Band E annexed to the affidavit of Kathleen M. Szesnat in contending that its claim for payment was submitted to MetLife, Inc. (see Bartkowski Aff., ~ 11 ), this reliance is unavailing. Exhibit B, which is an email · approving the application for the Policy, merely uses the "MetLife" registered trademark without any . mention of MetLife, Inc., which does not create an ambiguity under the Policy or demonstrate MetLife, Inc. 's assent to its terms (see SUS, Inc.,_ 75 AD3d at 742 n 1 [rejecting similar itrgument]). And Exhibit E is a premium payment refund check that was issued by MLIC, not MetLife, Inc. 6 7 of 10 [*FILED: 7] ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2018 01:33 PM . NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 ~ ' INDEX NO. 906836-16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2018 MLIC "owed an independent duty to [p]laintiff outside the [P]olicy" that is said to arise from "the rules and regulations governing all insurers doing business in the State of New York" (Opp MOL, p. 3). Spedfically, plaintiff relies on 11NYCRR216.0 (e) (4) and (5), claiming that the failure of MetLife, Inc. and MLIC "to timely respond to [plaintiffs] communications" and "to inform ... of [its] position" regarding the insurance claim at issue, as required by this ' regulation, constitutes a breach of an independent legal duty (Opp MOL, p. 3). However, "[i]t is well settled that rio private cause of action exists for ... an alleged violation of part 216 of the · Insurance Regulations" (De Marinis v Tower Ins. Co. ofNY, 6 AD3d 484, 486 [2d Dept 2004]; accord Blanar v State.Farm Ins. Cos., 34 AD3d 1333, 1334 [4th Dept 2006]; see Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v ITT Hartford Ins. Co., 249 AD2d 241, 242 [1st Dept 1998]). Accordingly, the third cause of acti9n must be dismissed as against all of the MetLife Defendants. Finally, the MetLife Defendants have failed to establish a legal basis for the requested award ofattorneys' fees and costs. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is granted, except as to the branch thereof that seeks an award of attorneys' fees a:nd costs, which application is denied; and it is further ORDERED that the first cause of action contained in the Amended Verified Complaint is dismissed as against defendants MetLife, Inc., MetLife Reinsurance Company of Charleston and Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Co~pany; and it is further ORDERED that the third cause of action contained in the Amended Verified Complaint is dismissed in its entirety; and it is further 7 8 of 10 [*FILED: 8] ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2018 01:33 PM INDEX NO. 906836-16 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 t I I RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2018 I ORDERED that the cross claim contained in the Verified Answer With Cross-Claims To Amended Verified Complaint of defendant Sean T. Byrne d/b/a STB Associates is dismissed as against defendants MetLife, Inc., MetLife Reinsurance Company of Charleston and . Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company; and it is further . . ORDERED that defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company shall serve an answer to the Amended Verified Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this Decision & Order; arid finally it is ORDERED that the remaining parties to this action shall confer regarding a schedule for I discovery, the filing of a note of issue and other matters as provide~ for in Rule 8 of the Commercial Division, and, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision & Order, eith~r: (i) stipulate:to a scheduling order, which shall be submitted to the Court for approval; or (ii) · request a scheduling conference with the Court. This constitute_s the Decision & Order of the Court. The origimd of this Decision'&· Order is being transmitted to counsel for the MetLife Defendants; all other papers are being transmitted to the Albany County Clerk. The signing of this Decision & Order shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR 2220, and counsel is not relieved from the applicable · provisions of that section respecting filing, entry and notice of entry. Dated: ·Albany, New York January 17, 2018 ,. RICHARD M. PLATKIN A.J.S.C. Papers Considered: NYSCEF Nos. 13-27 8 10 of 10

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.