Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Nick's Garage, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.

Nick's Garage, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

September 19, 2016, Argued; November 8, 2017, Decided

 [*110] Docket No. 15-1426-cv

Opinion

LEVAL, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff, Nick's Garage, Inc. ("Garage" or "Plaintiff"), appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (D'Agostino, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and related entities (collectively, the "Insurer").2 Garage, an  [*111]  automobile repair shop, brought these claims as assignee of its customers against the Insurer for breach of contract and deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law ("GBL") § 349. Garage alleges that Insurer failed to pay sufficient funds to fulfill its obligation to return the damaged vehicles to pre-accident condition, and engaged in deceptive practices in claims processing. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact, and furthermore, as to its claims of deceptive business practices, that such claims were also precluded by New York Insurance Law § 2601.

We conclude that the district court erred in part in [**3]  granting summary judgment to Insurer on Garage's breach of contract claims. Insurer failed to show its entitlement to judgment for costs relating to labor hours, parts, labor rates, electronic database access, and hazardous waste removal charges, and the absence of genuine disputes of material fact on these issues. Summary judgment should have been denied for those categories. On the other hand, Insurer demonstrated its entitlement to judgment, and Garage failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact, on Insurer's payments for paint material costs; the district court properly granted summary judgment to Insurer on that category of claims.

We also conclude that the district court erred in part in granting summary judgment to Insurer on Garage's GBL claims. There is a question of material fact on Garage's claim that Insurer engaged in deceptive practices concerning its labor rates payments, and that claim is not precluded by N.Y. Ins. Law § 2601. On the other hand, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Insurer on Garage's GBL claim that Insurer misled customers regarding their ability to use the repair shop of their choice.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

875 F.3d 107 *; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22357 **

Nick's Garage, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, National Continental Insurance Company, Progressive Advanced Insurance Company, Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Progressive Max Insurance Company, Progressive Northern Insurance Company, Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, Progressive Specialty Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.

Prior History: Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (D'Agostino, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff, an automobile repair shop, brought claims as assignee of its customers against Defendants, automobile insurance companies, for breach of contract and deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 349. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to fulfill their contractual obligation to pay sufficient funds to repair vehicles to their pre-accident condition, and engaged in deceptive practices in claims processing. The district court's grant of summary judgment was premised on its conclusion that there were no genuine issues of material fact on which Plaintiff could prevail, and, as to Plaintiff's claims of deceptive business practices, that such claims were in addition precluded by New York Insurance Law § 2601 [**1] .

Held, the district court erred in part in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's breach of contract and deceptive practices claims. The Judgment is AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, and REMANDED.

Nick's Garage, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41984 (N.D.N.Y., Mar. 31, 2015)

CORE TERMS

Insurer, repair, rates, summary judgment, district court, prevailing, material fact, pre-loss, Assignors, genuine dispute, non-OEM, charges, practices, estimate, repair shop, deceptive, entitlement to judgment, good faith, grant summary judgment, misleading, customer, matter of law, consumers, paint, shop, contractual obligation, entitled to judgment, deceptive act, argues, negotiate

Civil Procedure, Judgments, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appellate Review, Standards of Review, Burdens of Proof, Movant Persuasion & Proof, Business & Corporate Compliance, Breach, Breach of Contract Actions, Elements of Contract Claims, Insurance Law, Types of Insurance, Motor Vehicle Insurance, Obligations, Obligations, Good Faith & Fair Dealing, Settlements, Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, State Regulation, Industry Practices, Unfair Business Practices, Unfair Trade Practices Acts