Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hudson Heritage Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

January 22, 2018

HUDSON HERITAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Plaintiff,
v.
CUMIS INSURANCE SOCIETY, INC., d/b/a CUNA MUTUAL GROUP, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge

         Plaintiff 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 (“CUMIS”).

         Now pending is CUMIS's motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. #16).

         For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

         This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

         BACKGROUND

         For 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 summarized below.

         HHFCU alleges for over 75 years, it has had “an extensive and comprehensive business relationship” with CUMIS, an insurance company. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 121-22).

         In May 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).

         Among 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 35).[1]

         “Instrument” 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 or title.”

Id. at 49 (emphasis added).

         HHFCU 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 loaned funds.

         HHFCU learned of these fraudulent schemes when each of the underlying loans “went into default.” (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28, 46, 65).

         HHFCU alleges it suffered losses of $134, 879 as a result of these fraudulent schemes.

         On July 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.