Key Takeaway
New York court grants severance in no-fault insurance case, separating 198 unrelated claims. Analysis of litigation strategy and costs in High Definition MRI v Mapfre Insurance.
High Definition MRI, P.C. v Mapfre Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 01800 (1st Dept. 2017)
“The court properly severed the breach of contract cause of action, since the 198 unrelated no-fault claims asserted therein raise no common issues of fact or law (see CPLR 603; Radiology Resource Network, P.C., v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 185 ). Plaintiff’s contention that the defense of fraudulent incorporation presents common factual and legal issues that predominate is unavailing, since defendant has made clear that it does not intend to pursue that defense”
So two things are going to happen here. First, Plaintiff walks away because they thought this would be a commercial action as opposed to a no-fault collection action and their shoes are too “white” to get sullied by a collections action. Second, Mapfre gets slaughtered in interest (let alone legal fees from their counsel) because cases in Civil New York go nowhere very slowly. By time these cases are final for trial and there is a judge ready to hear the cases, the interest factor will be at 300%. Add in hourly attorneys fees and who is the winner here? The expression is so true: Win the battle, lose the _____?
