American Commerce Ins. Co. v Francois, 2015 NY Slip Op 01594 (2d Dept. 2015)
Okay Oleg and Damin. Good job. Are you happy? You (Oleg) claim that I never praise you when you win, so here you go.
“The plaintiff sought to temporarily restrain and preliminarily enjoin all no-fault actions arising from a car accident in which its insured allegedly was a driver. The plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its cause of action (see Matter of Advanced Digital Sec. Solutions, Inc. v Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd., 53 AD3d 612; Matter of Related Props., Inc. v Town Bd. of Town/Vil. of Harrison, 22 AD3d 587, 590; Blueberries Gourmet v Aris Realty Corp., 255 AD2d 348, 349-350), failed to demonstrate that it would suffer any imminent and nonspeculative harm in the absence of the requested injunctive relief (see County of Suffolk v Givens, 106 AD3d 943; Golden v Steam Heat, 216 AD2d 440, 442), and failed to demonstrate that any injuries it would suffer would not be compensable by money damages (see Rowland v Dushin, 82 AD3d 738; EdCia Corp. v McCormack, 44 AD3d 991, 994; Matter of Gandolfo v White, 224 AD2d 526, 528). The plaintiff also failed to establish that the equities balance in its favor (see McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel v Nolan & Co., 114 AD2d 165, 174). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.”
Wish I knew why this happened?
6 Responses
Why … Courts are loathe to grant such motions .. you know that! So, at the EUO one guy says they were going to Wendy’s for a burger and the other says they were getting Pizza at Mario’s. Hence, staged accident. The preliminary injunction vehicle is too often abused. Further, its not like civil court judges and arbitrators are not capable of making a decision of the issue. And once that decision is made, it is usually collateral estoppel.
Finally Appellae Division saw these DJs for what they are worth.
Well, I in fact know very well about the Marios Pizza ring.
Problem with the civil court judges versus supreme court is their propensity for dealing with 200 motion arguments by finding an issue of fact for trial. Trials make it pretty difficult in the no-fault setting, good luck trying to get these shysters to appear for 48 trials.
But the court said the action lacked merit. We can argue about the discretionary balancing factors that a PI takes into account. But if the Appellate Division said the action lacked merit (or did not have a likelihood of success), that is a huge problem and begs the questions: 1) why was the action was commenced in the first place; and 2) why was a recommendation made to the carrier to disclaim coverage.
Haaaah … JT … oh what a good little storm trooper you are.
Insurance companies never disclaim coverage to get out of paying claims.
Never happens … Sandy … never happens … Katrina … never happens … the term “settlement lag” was just made up … never … the term the “efficient breach” was just made up … all of them contained in every Farnsworth Treatise on insurance law.
The Superintendent of Insurance … now part of the Department Finance — the leadership doesn’t comprise of insurance company execs and/or lawyers.
Wrynn was a consumer advocate.
Once again this is how Nazi Germany literally started and it aint no joke.
Calling it your job will never make it right.
Thanks Jason, appreciate you throwing me a bone here. Always a pleasure to hear a colleague give praise. You are a great lawyer, keep it up, always a challenge when squaring off against you. And thanks for running this blog.