COPERATIVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A., “RABOBANK INTERNATIONAL,” NEW YORK BRANCH, plf-ap, v. ATRADIUS CREDIT INSURANCE N.V. def-res

3630-3631. COPERATIVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A., "RABOBANK INTERNATIONAL," NEW YORK BRANCH, plf-ap, v. ATRADIUS CREDIT INSURANCE N.V. def-res — Haynes and Boone, LLP, New York (Jonathan D. Pressment of counsel), for ap — Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, New York (Anthony L. Paccione of counsel), for Atradius Credit Insurance N.V., res — Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York (Edward P. Krugman of counsel), for Chartis Insurance Company of Canada, res — Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered on or about October 23, 2015, and on or about November 24, 2015, which granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3630-3631. COPERATIVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A., “RABOBANK INTERNATIONAL,” NEW YORK BRANCH, plf-ap, v. ATRADIUS CREDIT INSURANCE N.V. def-res — Haynes and Boone, LLP, New York (Jonathan D. Pressment of counsel), for ap — Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, New York (Anthony L. Paccione of counsel), for Atradius Credit Insurance N.V., res — Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York (Edward P. Krugman of counsel), for Chartis Insurance Company of Canada, res — Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered on or about October 23, 2015, and on or about November 24, 2015, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint fails to allege facts that would establish a special relationship in support of the causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and breach of fiduciary duty, separate from the parties’ arm’s-length contractual relationship under the insurance policy (see e.g. Kobre v. United Jewish Appeal-Fedn. of Jewish Philanthropies of N.Y., Inc., 32 AD3d 218, 223 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 715 [2006]; Batas v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 281 AD2d 260, 264 [1st Dept 2001]; Jansen v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y., 79 NY2d 867 [1992]). Defendants’ publicly available marketing materials and links to its website do not create a special relationship (see Batas, 281 AD2d 264; cf. Kimmell v. Schaefer, 89 NY2d 257, 264-265 [1996] [defendants found to owe duty of care to plaintiffs where they provided projections for distribution to plaintiffs in particular]). Neither do the marketing materials’ general assertions of defendants’ experience and expertise in the area of credit risk management give rise to a special relationship (Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 255 AD2d 101, 102 [1st Dept 1998], mod on other grounds 94 NY2d 330 [1999]).

COPERATIVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A., “RABOBANK INTERNATIONAL,” NEW YORK BRANCH, plf-ap, v. ATRADIUS CREDIT INSURANCE N.V. def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal