ADDITIONAL CASES Lee Mandel, Counter Claimant v. GEICO Marine Insurance Company, Counter Defendant MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GEICO Marine Insurance Company commenced this insurance coverage action against Lee Mandel seeking a declaratory judgment as to the rights and obligations of the parties under two yacht insurance policies. Pending before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, Mandel’s motion is DENIED and GEICO’s motion is GRANTED in its entirety. Facts and Procedural History Based on this Court’s opinion in GEICO Marine Ins. Co. v. Mandel, No. 19-CV-3107(SJF)(AKT), 2020 WL 6318948, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 19-CV-3107(SJF)(AKT), 2020 WL 5939186 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2020), the parties’ Rule 56.1 Statements, and review of the evidence submitted, the material undisputed facts include the following: Lee Mandel was the owner of a 52′ SeaRay sedan bridge-model seafaring vessel. 2020 WL 6318948, at *3. GEICO issued Mandel two yacht insurance policies for 2015-16 and 2016- 17. Id. Both policies required that, “With respect to any claim or loss to insured property, the action must begin within one year of the date of loss or damage.” Id. In December 2015, Mandel submitted a claim for damage to the starboard, i.e., right-side, engine. GEICO approved piecemeal repairs of approximately $92,400. Id. In July 2016, Mandel submitted a supplemental claim for damages caused by a crack in the engine cylinder. Id. In August 2016, Mandel submitted a claim for damages to the port, i.e., left-side, engine. Id. Afterward, the starboard engine began emitting blue-white smoke. Id. GEICO inspected the vessel in September and November 2016 to investigate Mandel’s claims. Id. In December 2016, Mandel removed and replaced the starboard and port engines. Id. In February 2017, GEICO gave Mandel a supplemental and final payment of approximately $17,400 for damage to the starboard engine. Id. GEICO inspected the vessel once again in November 2017. Id. GEICO’s February 2018 report declined to pay Mandel the replacement cost of the engine because “the decision to proceed with the replacement of Mr. Mandel’s engines was made at his direction and not in accordance with the previous settlements issued” since “replacements of both engines and auxiliary components…do not represent, as set forth by the policy, a reasonable cost of repair, [but] instead constitute betterment.” Id. at *3-4. Later that month, GEICO paid Mandel approximately $23,200 for damage to the port engine. Id. at *4. Over a year later, in April 2019, Mandel renewed his demand for the cost of replacing the starboard and port engines — approximately $213,500 after payments received — and advised that he would pursue litigation if not paid. Id. In response, GEICO Marine Insurance Company commenced this insurance coverage action in May 2019 seeking a declaratory judgment that Mandel is not entitled to coverage for the claimed losses. DE 1. The complaint asserts three causes of action based on the insurance policies’ exclusions (Counts I and II) and the one-year limitation for bringing legal action (Count III). In July 2019, Mandel filed a counterclaim, alleging GEICO breached the insurance policy and acted in “bad faith”1 by (1) paying less than what the insurance policies provide; (2) negligently and/or inadequately investigating his claims; and (3) instituting this legal action instead of pursuing the appraisal process. See DE 7,
