Key Takeaway
Court rules insurer's settlement decision was mistake in judgment, not bad faith, despite significant damages potential in GM case.
This article is part of our ongoing bad faith coverage, with 16 published articles analyzing bad faith issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 02384 (1st Dept 2014)
The motion court erred when it denied defendant insurer’s motion for summary judgment where plaintiffs, defendant’s insured and the excess insurer, failed to raise an issue of fact. The record does not present conduct that constitutes a “gross disregard” by defendant of plaintiffs’ interests (see Pavia v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 82 NY2d 445, 453-454 ). We reject plaintiffs’ argument that defendant avoided acknowledging the underlying plaintiff’s potential damages such that a refusal to offer the policy limit constituted a reckless or conscious disregard of the excess insurer’s rights. While there was some indication that damages could be significant if the medical records substantiated the underlying plaintiff’s claim of a loss of smell from a severe blow to the head, the record established that defendant’s investigation presented a great deal of medical evidence tending to show that the underlying plaintiff’s injuries were primarily preexisting soft tissue injuries unrelated to the automobile accident on April 24, 1994. Defendant’s investigation included the medical opinion of four physicians that conducted independent medical examinations; one psychologist who conducted a review of the extensive medical records; experienced defense counsel; and separate monitoring counsel for the damages trial. The review of the numerous medical records, which included contradicting evaluations of the underlying plaintiff’s treating physicians, provided a justifiable basis to fairly evaluate potential damages and assess the relative risks of declining to offer a settlement of the policy limit.”
“Here, the assessment of the insured’s exposure and the failure to make a settlement offer of the policy limit was a mistake in judgment. It does not demonstrate that defendant acted in bad faith by failing to heed contrary evidence. Instead, the record shows defendant’s reasonable belief that, under the No Fault Law, the underlying plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury causally related to the accident.”
I somehow remember reading about this jury verdict. Now, the excess insurer is upset because the primary carrier made what appears to be a boneheaded decision and got zinged with 6-7 figure liability.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More Bad Faith Analysis
Is Your NY Insurer Acting in Bad Faith?
Learn how insurers commit bad faith under NY's No-Fault Law and how to fight denied claims with legal strategies.
Feb 25, 2025
Perlbinder
Perlbinder v Vigilant: the settlement judgment, surviving consumer-deception claim and punitive-damages demand, and dismissed emotional-distress claim.
Mar 22, 2021
The motion that went nowhere
Genovese distinguishes a surviving no-fault contract claim from insufficient fraud and consequential-damages allegations; Data Tree history is clarified.
May 16, 2013
Bad faith not warranted: Cause of action dismissed
Expert analysis of insurance bad faith claims in New York. Learn from the Liang v Progressive case and protect your rights. Call 516-750-0595 for help.
May 1, 2019
Bad faith and GBL 349 has really arrived
Court ruling establishes bad faith and GBL 349 claims against insurers who pressure IME doctors to deny no-fault benefits, allowing consequential damages.
Dec 17, 2017
The bad faith boondoggle that we knew was coming
Court ruling on GEICO bad faith insurance claim dismissal - analyzing SUM benefits dispute and insurer's duty to act in good faith under NY law.
Feb 24, 2016Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
3 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
What constitutes insurance bad faith in New York?
Bad faith occurs when an insurer unreasonably delays, denies, or underpays a valid claim without a legitimate basis. In New York, bad faith in the no-fault context can include failing to timely pay or deny claims, conducting sham IMEs, or using delay tactics to avoid payment. While New York does not have a standalone bad faith statute for first-party claims, remedies include consequential damages and interest.
What remedies are available for insurer bad faith?
In no-fault cases, remedies include 2% per month statutory interest on overdue claims under 11 NYCRR §65-3.9, attorney fees, and potentially consequential damages. In liability insurance contexts, insurers acting in bad faith may be liable for the full judgment against the insured, even exceeding policy limits.
How do I prove bad faith by my insurance company?
You must show the insurer had no reasonable basis for denying or delaying your claim. Evidence includes the insurer's claims file, the timing and adequacy of their investigation, whether they followed their own procedures, and whether the denial was supported by the medical evidence. A pattern of similar conduct toward other claimants can also be relevant.
Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a bad faith matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
