Disclaimer: These regulations may not be the most recent version. New York may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site.
Please check official sources. The court noted that there was no case authority supporting the proposition that an insured person who did not purchase, own, or expect a contractual benefit from an insurance policy had standing to sue as a third-party beneficiary.
The motion court explained:. Hobish, in contravention of identical form policy agreements. AXA argued that plaintiffs could not establish that they were deceived by any acts or practices because the possibility that COI rates would be increased was disclosed in the Policy and the sales illustrations signed by Hobish and the then-trustee of the Trust.
The motion court declined to rule on the issue, holding that there were issues of fact not ripe for resolution on the motion. The motion rejected the argument. Second, the court noted that although Hobish did not own the Policy, she nevertheless adequately pleaded an injury from the alleged deceptive acts.
The court explained:. The court agrees with plaintiffs that Ms. Hobish alleges a sufficiently direct injury resulting from the purported deceptive practices in that her right and ability, as a consumer, to plan and maintain her estate were harmed. Apart from the pecuniary loss of premium payments she alleges, Ms. Hobish claims that she was deceived by defendant throughout her participation in the sales transactions and the maintenance of the Policy, and that she sustained injuries to her estate planning interests as a result.
In particular, AXA maintained that the damages alleged for both claims were the same. The motion court agreed with plaintiffs. On the issue of standing, the Court agreed with the motion court. US Federal Law. US State Law. Other Databases. Marketing Solutions.
0コメント