United States District Court, S.D. New York
OPINION AND ORDER
Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge
Hudson Heritage Federal Credit Union (“HHFCU”),
brings this diversity action for breach of contract,
declaratory judgment, and negligence against defendant CUMIS
Insurance Society, Inc. d/b/a CUNA Mutual Group
pending is CUMIS's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. #16).
reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts
all factual allegations of the complaint as true, and draws
all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor, as
alleges for over 75 years, it has had “an extensive and
comprehensive business relationship” with CUMIS, an
insurance company. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 121-22).
2016, HHFCU entered into a fidelity bond contract (the
“bond”) with CUMIS. The bond “represented
the renewal of an annual prepaid policy that is and was
continuous until canceled.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 8).
other things, the bond provides that CUMIS would “pay
[HHFCU] for [its] loss resulting directly from the
‘forgery' or alteration of an
‘instrument.'” (Def.'s Br. Ex. A at
is defined as:
original: mortgage, “document of
title, ” deed, contract for deed, deed of trust,
promissory note, “security agreement, ” money
order, certificate of deposit, “certificated
securities, ” bond coupon, interim receipt for a
security, assignment of mortgage, check, draft, share draft,
bill of exchange, “withdrawal order, ”
“letter of credit, ” “acceptance, ”
passbook held as collateral, or “certificate of origin
Id. at 49 (emphasis added).
alleges between April and July 2016, it was the victim of
three separate fraudulent schemes related to loans for the
purchase of three automobiles. In each instance, a member of
HHFCU applied for a loan to purchase an automobile using a
falsified New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
(“DMV”) title, which misrepresented the
owner/seller of the automobile to be purchased with the
learned of these fraudulent schemes when each of the
underlying loans “went into default.” (Am. Compl.
¶¶ 28, 46, 65).
alleges it suffered losses of $134, 879 as a result of these
22, 2016, HHFCU submitted a claim to CUMIS related to the
losses it incurred as a result of two of the three fraudulent
schemes. It subsequently supplemented the ...