From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DiBlasi v. Blue Cross of W. New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 20, 1989
156 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

December 20, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Denman, Balio and Lawton, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and defendant's motion granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant insurer seeking reimbursement of a portion of the expense of her three-month hospitalization in the psychiatric unit of Strong Memorial Hospital for treatment of an eating disorder, depression and drug abuse. After review of plaintiff's claim under her medical insurance policy and major medical rider, defendant reimbursed plaintiff for expenses incurred during the first 30 days of her hospitalization but denied reimbursement for the balance of her stay. In addition to her claim for compensatory damages for breach of contract, plaintiff seeks punitive damages of $500,000. Defendant appeals from an order which denied its motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.

Defendant demonstrated entitlement to dismissal of the punitive damages claim and plaintiff failed to sustain her burden in opposition. The record fails to support plaintiff's allegation that defendant, in its treatment of eating disorder claims, is systematically engaged in a morally culpable course of conduct, aimed at the public generally, in disregard of its contractual obligations (see, Halpin v Prudential Ins. Co., 48 N.Y.2d 906, 907, rearg denied 49 N.Y.2d 801; Walker v Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401, 405; O'Dell v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 145 A.D.2d 791, 792). In particular, the record does not support plaintiff's assertion that defendant systematically denies reimbursement for treatment of eating disorders. In fact, it appears on this record that defendant's general practice is to reimburse eating disorder claims insofar as they require acute medical treatment but to deny reimbursement where such claims involve nonacute treatment. Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, defendant's partial denial of benefits was not based on its characterization of eating disorders as nervous and mental conditions without physiological effects.


Summaries of

DiBlasi v. Blue Cross of W. New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 20, 1989
156 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

DiBlasi v. Blue Cross of W. New York, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DEBRA A. DiBLASI, Respondent, v. BLUE CROSS OF WESTERN NEW YORK, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 20, 1989

Citations

156 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

Tinlee Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co.

In reliance upon Walker, the First Department has held that a claim for punitive damages in a first-party…

Riordan v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

The Third and Fourth Judicial Departments also subscribe to this view. See Monroe v. Providence Washington…