1 No. 52
Frank J. Gaidon, &c., et al.,
Respondents,
v.
The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
3 No. 53
Marie E. Russo,
Appellant,
v.
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Case No. 52:
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 47
May 8, 2001
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Thomas J. Dougherty, for appellant.
Barry A. Weprin, for respondents.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York; Life
Insurance Council of New York, Inc., amici curić.
Case No. 53: Barry A. Weprin, for appellant.
Vaughn C. Williams, for respondent.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, amicus
curić.
_________________________________________________________________
LEVINE, J.:
In Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins. Co. (94 2 330) (Gaidon I), this Court
ruled that plaintiffs had pleaded a legally sufficient cause of action
against defendant Guardian Life Insurance Company under General
Business Law § 349(h). The complaint alleged that Guardian Life
engaged in deceptive marketing and sales practices in promoting sales
of its "vanishing premium" policies through agents' representations
and personalized graphic illustrations showing that, after a specified
SNIPPETS:
The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America,
Marie E. Russo, Appellant, v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Respondent.
In Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins.
Co., this Court ruled that plaintiffs had pleaded a legally sufficient cause of action
The complaint alleged that Guardian Life engaged in deceptive marketing and sales practices
The Gaidon case is now again before us and, along with the appeal in Russo v Massachusetts
nt life insurers demanded additional premium payments beyond the dates by which they led plaintiffs
Plaintiffs commenced this action on October 8, 1996, asserting claims for breach of contract
We modified by reinstating only plaintiffs' section 349 cause of action, and remitted to the
The court held that the three-year period of limitation for statutory causes of action )
In Russo v Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, plaintiff, a purchaser of defendant's
The complaint contained causes of action sounding in, among other things, breach of contract,
Supreme Court granted Mass Mutual's motion to dismiss the General Business Law § 349 cause of
On plaintiff's appeals, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed all three of
Affirmance of the dismissal of plaintiff's General Business Law § 349 claim was on a
Like the First Department in Gaidon, the court ruled that the applicable Statute of
Yet we also held that the disclaimers were not sufficient to dispel the deceptiveness of
In general, a cause of action accrues, triggering commencement of the limitations period,
This vanishing date, plaintiffs allege, was misleading, as based on the premise that interest
|
