MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This is an insurance coverage dispute between plaintiff Susan Dahlinger and defendant First American Specialty Insurance Company. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff alleges that she purchased an insurance policy from Defendant for her home in Highland, New York, and that, when her home was damaged by a broken plumbing line, Defendant breached the policy by refusing to cover the losses. Id. As recompense, Plaintiff asks for compensatory and consequential damages. Id. 35. Defendant has filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) asking the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for consequential damages. Dkt. Nos. 8 (“Motion to Dismiss”); 8-4 (“Memorandum”). Plaintiff opposes this motion, Dkt. No 9 (“Opposition”), and Defendant has filed a reply, Dkt. No. 11 (“Reply”). For the following reasons, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss. II. BACKGROUND At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court draws all facts from the Complaint, and “assumes all factual allegations in the Complaint are true.” Colangelo v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc., No. 18-CV-1228, 2020 WL 777462, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2020) (Kahn, J.) (citing Bryant v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep’t, 692 F.3d 202, 210 (2d Cir. 2012)). A. Factual Background Plaintiff lives at 548 N. Riverside Drive in Highland, New York. Compl. 1-2, 5, 8. Defendant is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Santa Ana, California. Id. 2. Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy for the Riverside Drive property (the “Property”) from Defendant, effective from March 6, 2016 to March 6, 2017 (the “Policy”).1 Id. 5. The Policy insured Plaintiff “against direct physical loss of or damage to the insured premises caused by a sudden and accidental break in a plumbing line,” and covered real and personal property. Id. 6. The Policy also covered “loss of use” in the event of serious physical damage to the Property. Id. 14. On or about January 6, 2017, a “sudden and accidental break in a plumbing line” damaged the Property. Id. 7. The break “caused water damage throughout the house,” damaging both personal property and the home itself. Id. 8. Besides the property damage, “[i]mmediately following and in the aftermath [of the pipe break], Plaintiff [also] suffered a series of severe, incapacitating and life-threatening physical and emotional illnesses.” Id. 9. “As soon as reasonably possible” after the plumbing lines burst, Plaintiff submitted an insurance claim to Defendant for the damage to her house and personal property. Id. 10. Additionally, because the home was not “safe and livable after the water damage,” Plaintiff also sought benefits “pursuant to the additional living expenses” provision in the Policy. Id. 11. In response to these claims, Defendant “acknowledged coverage for the loss,” sent an insurance adjuster to inspect the damage to the Property, and “undertook to handle the claim through its duly authorized representatives.” Id. 12. While Defendant evaluated her claims, Plaintiff “complied with all [the necessary] conditions precedent,” “cooperat[ed] with [Defendant's] investigation of the” claims, and “substantially performed” all of her obligations under the Policy. Id.
13, 15 27. Despite this, and in breach of “its contractual duty to adequately compensate Plaintiff under the terms of the Policy,” id. 27, Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff for the damage to her home, id.
