Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies

EDEBALI v. BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY

ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
2:14-cv-07095 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Yucel Edebali
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of New York
Date Filed: 
Dec 4 2014

Plaintiff, YUCEL EDEBALI, by his attorneys, GREENBLATT &
AGULNICK, P,C., for his Verified Complaint against the Defendant, alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff YUCEL EDEBALI is a resident of the State of New York with an
address of 5 Roads End, Brookville, NY 11565, in the County of Nassau and State of
New York.
2. That Defendant BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY
(hereinafter “BANKERS” or “Insurance Company”) is a foreign corporation with its
principle offices located at PO Box 1000, 436 Water Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

RELEVANT FACTS
3. That BANKERS, its subsidiary, broker and/or agent is an Insurance
Company licensed, admitted, engaging in, and/or authorized to engage in the business of
liability and casualty insurance throughout the world, including within the State of New
York, with offices for the transaction of business located within the State of New York.
4. At all times hereinafter alleged, Plaintiff owned and had an insurable
interest the real property commonly referred to as 546 Long Beach Road, Nissequogue,
New York 11780 (the "Property"), in the County of Suffolk and State of New York.
5. At all times hereinafter alleged, Plaintiff owned and had an insurable
interest in the building, contents, fixtures, furniture, and completed additions located at
546 Long Beach Road, Nissequogue, New York 11780, in the County of Suffolk and
State of New York.

THE POLICY
6. That at all relevant times hereinafter, Insurance Company, its subsidiary,
and/or its agent for good and valuable consideration and a premium paid, issued to
Plaintiff a residential homeowner’s insurance policy, including endorsements and
amendments thereto which became a part of said policy, bearing the policy number 268-
02-80-38 (the ’’Policy"), whereby it insured the Property against all risks of loss to up to
the limits contained therein, including, inter alia, physical loss from wind, power surge,
vandalism, theft, and also provided for coverage for lost rents and coverage for
alternative living expenses. The Policy was signed by the authorized agents of the
Defendant, its subsidiary, and/or agent.
7. Pursuant to the policy, the Insurance Company, its subsidiary, and or agent
agreed to insure the Plaintiff against loss of property by, inter alia, wind damage, power
surge, vandalism, theft, and also with coverage for lost rents and coverage for alternative
living expenses. The BANKERS, its subsidiary, and/or agent, during the policy term,
agreed to indemnify the Plaintiff against a covered loss or damage sustained to any of
the described property and contents therein.

THE SANDY LOSS
8. On or about October 29, 2012, while the insurance policy was in frill force
and effect, and as a result of the severe weather event referred to as Superstorm Sandy
(hereinafter “Sandy”), a wind storm and power surge occurred at the Property described
in the Policy which resulted in a direct physical loss to the Plaintiffs real property,
personal property, fixtures, and improvements and betterments, and also resulted in the
Property being uninhabitable and unusable.
The Sandy Damages
9. As set forth above, the Property sustained significant damages as a result
of Sandy, by way of the covered perils of wind and power surge.
10. The damages sustained during Sandy include, but are not limited to,
damage to .the structure, the electronics and home automation systems, the HVAC
systems, irrigation controls and sprinkler system, exterior lighting and electrical,
landscaping, other structures, contents including live coral reef, outdoor swimming pool,
indoor swimming pool, and bluff stairs.
The Sandy Additional Living Expenses. Lost Rents, Bad Faith and Failures
11. That as a result of the foregoing Sandy damages, the home was rendered
uninhabitable and unusable.
12. That Plaintiff had used the subject property as a residence for the offseason
months and was holding the Property as a rental property for the Summer season
(Memorial Day through Labor Day) beginning in 2013, as well as the Summer of 2014.
13. That notwithstanding the provision in the Policy which arguendo provides
for coverage of additional living expenses, it is commonly accepted claims procedure for
an Insurance Company to undertake to rent an alternative premises for an insured, with
said procedure being for the benefit of both the insured and the carrier.
14. That the benefit for the carrier for undertaking the action to rent an
alternative living premises for the insured rather than the insured itself do so and
“incurring” the expenses is predicated upon the carrier’s network of realtors, ability to
negotiate directly and ability to negotiate the most favorable terms and rates, for which
the carrier is ultimately responsible for paying or indemnifying.
15. That notwithstanding the specific terms of the Policy, it is extremely
common claims procedure for the carrier to pay for the alternative properties directly to
the landlord, broker, or rental services, as opposed to the insured paying and incurring the
expenses and being indemnified thereafter,
16. That the common claims procedure as forth above is well known and
accepted in the insurance industry, whether an insured is unrepresented, is represented by
a Public Adjuster or by counsel.
17. That following the subject loss, the insured and his Public Adjuster
indicated to the Defendant’s claim representative that the insured wished to rent an
alternative premises with the same amenities as the insured’s premises, including but not
limited to, an indoor swimming pool, home theater, tennis court, fireplace and similar
sleeping accommodations.
18. That shortly after the loss, the insured and his Public Adjuster indicated
that it is anticipated that an alternative premises with comparable amenities would be
upwards of $100,000.00 per month or more in the off season and upwards of $350,000.00
per month during the Summer season.
19. That on or about January, 2013 Defendant’s adjuster Jeffrey Maffuci
(“Maffuci”) scoffed at the estimated cost of an alternative premises and represented to the
insured that the carrier would procure an alternative premises, consistent with the long
standing and common practice in the insurance industry.
20. That Plaintiff relied upon the representation of Defendant and/or Maffuci
that the carrier would arrange for the alternative premises, as was reasonable and
common to do so.
21. That the Plaintiffs reliance upon the representation of Defendant and/or
their adjuster Maffuci was unfortunately to the insured’s detriment, in that despite their
representation, neither he nor anyone else at BANKERS took any steps to procure an
alternative premises for the insured.
22. That the Defendant failed to take any steps in connection with the
procurement of an alternative property, notwithstanding their representation and repeated
requests by the insured.
23. That the Defendant failed to take any steps in connection with the
procurement of an alternative property, notwithstanding the representation by Defendant
that the carrier would undertake to do so and the fact that the practice is so common.
24. That the interplay between the language of most insurance policies which
calls for reimbursement of incurred additional living expenses and the common and
accepted practice of an insurance carrier procuring an alternative premises and paying
directly, without the insured actually incurring any expense, is one which potentially
affects every single insurance policy with alternative living expense coverage.
25. That the interplay between the language of most insurance policies which
calls for reimbursement of incurred additional living expenses and the common and
accepted practice of an insurance carrier procuring an alternative premises and paying
directly, without the insured actually incurring any expense, is one which potentially
affects most residential insurance policies.
26. That the bad faith failure of the insurer to procure an alternative premises
notwithstanding its representation that it would do so, and upon which an insured relies,
ultimately deprives an insured of the use and value of the Property.
27. That the practice of representing to an insured that a carrier would
undertake to procure an alternative residence, failing to do so and then denying of the
alternative living expense claim based upon on expenses being not actually “incurred” is
one that affects the public at large.
28. That the Defendant here denied Plaintiffs claim for alternative living
expenses in connection with the 10/29/2012 loss notwithstanding Defendant’s
representation that the carrier would procure an alternative property.
29. That the failure of Defendant to procure an alternative premises
notwithstanding its representation it would do so, was intentional, in bad faith, and part of
a pattern and practice designed to capitalize on the interplay between the common
practice of insurance companies procuring alternative premises for insureds and the terms
of the alternative living expenses provision of the policies themselves.
30. In addition to the foregoing, Defendant denied the Plaintiffs claim for lost
rents, in connection with insureds inability to rent the subject property for the Summer
season, notwithstanding Plaintiffs holding the Property for rental during the Summer
season and his intention to do so.
31. That the Defendant’s denial of Plaintiffs claim for lost rents was based
upon illogical, self-serving grounds and in bad faith.
32. That the denial for lost rents was frivolously and illogically based upon the
Defendant’s assertion that namely that the Property was not held for rent by virtue of the
fact that the Summer of 2013 was the first Summer season for which the Plaintiff
intended to hold the Property and to rent the Property to others.
33. By misrepresenting its intent to procure an alternative premises only to
then intentionally and with malicious calculation failing to do so, BANKERS acted in
bad faith and breached the duties of good faith and fair dealing owed to Plaintiff and
Plaintiff has been damaged, directly and consequentially.
The Delays in Adjustment of the Claim and Its Consequences
34. That the claim handling in connection with the Sandy Claim was
repeatedly delayed and handled in such a half-hazard manner by BANKERS that
BANKERS itself failed to know precisely what portions of the claim had been resolved
by way of the appraisal process and what portions of the claim were outstanding.
35. That despite the appraisal process being invoked with regard to certain
portions of the dwelling and other structure claims, the appraisal process can only apply
to those portions of a loss where the insured and the carrier disagree.
36. That despite the appraisal process being conducted with regard to those
items where there was a disagreement over the amount of the loss, there were a number
of items which were subject to further investigation, were not included in the appraisal
process, or were not ripe for determination by any party at the time of the appraisal
process.
37. That notwithstanding the fact that there were a multitude of items which
remained to be adjusted in connection with the Sandy claim as of 2014, including the live
coral rock, damages to the indoor swimming pool, irrigation controls and sprinkler
system, exterior lighting and electrical, landscaping, HVAC components, and home
automation components, BANKERS denied those items stating, inter alia, that those
items were resolved by way of appraisal.
38. That the after-the-fact inclusion of those unadjusted items as those which
had been resolved by way of appraisal was in bad faith, evidenced by such a position
contradicting BANKERS’ prior documented position, the reality of the claim, the
purpose of appraisal, and the proper claim process.
39. That in addition to the foregoing, the delay of the claim handling itself,
including delayed payments to the insured, which were either undisputed or should have
been undisputed, caused additional damages, in that the property remained unpowered,
unsecured, and vulnerable for a prolonged period of time.
40. That the vulnerability resulting from the delayed, flawed, and bad faith
claim process by BANKERS ultimately resulted in the Property being broken into twice,
and severely vandalized.

THE VANDALISM/THEFT LOSSES
The Radiant Heating System
41. That on or about September 28, 2013 and October 5, 2013 the Property
was broken into, vandalized, and burglarized.
42. That the above vandalism and theft losses were covered under the Policy
and occurred as a clear result of the delay of the Sandy claim and the security
vulnerability caused by BANKERS’ conduct and failures to adjust the claim promptly
and fairly.
43. That the vandalism/theft losses were substantial and a new adjuster was
assigned to the file, who notably had no role in the Sandy claim, causing yet more of a
disconnect and making it more difficult to resolve the outstanding issues involved in the
Sandy claim and the vandalism/theft claims.
44. Given the interwoven nature of the Sandy claim and the vandalism/theft
claims, logic would have warranted the same adjuster handle both, but such did not occur
and it is believed by the insured to be a result of the Sandy adjuster Mr. Maffuci’s
bungling of the claim process and failures therein.
45. That as a result of the vandalism and theft losses, the home was
significantly damaged further, which included damages to the radiant heating system,
HVAC systems, electronics damage and theft, theft of art, small appliances, televisions,
damage to furniture, copper piping, and more.
46. That the damage to the radiant heating and plumbing system was
significant, in that singular composite tubing runs which extend under the first level
flooring and throughout the home were cut, which would require replacement of the
entire run to return it to its pre-loss condition.
47. That immediately following the vandalism/theft losses, Plaintiff demanded
that the radiant heating system be adjusted so that the system is returned to its pre-loss
condition, with singular uninterrupted and unpatched runs throughout the home.
48. That the replacement of the radiant heating systems runs in their entirety
was recommended by manufacturers, experts in the field, and based upon the goal of
returning the system to its pre-loss condition, rather than merely getting the system to
work.
49. That BANKERS approached the adjustment of the system with an eye
towards merely getting the system to work, seeking a solution only slightly more
sophisticated than recommending the runs be repaired with duct tape and contrary to the
terms of the Policy.
50. That for a length of time, BANKERS could not locate a qualified
individual to assess the damages, and in at least one instance, BANKERS’ “experienced”
plumber advised he could not price the repairs, as it was too large.
51. That rather than locate an individual with the actual expertise necessary to
adjust the damage to the radiant heating system and the plumbing system, BANKERS
requested that another unqualified individual visit the property and give an estimate.
52. Notably, the estimate provided by BANKERS, which was relied upon for
their adjustment, merely stated a time and materials figure.
53. That the adjustment by BANKERS’ plumber, which was expected to be
the amount necessary to make the repairs to the complex radiant heating system and
plumbing system, was merely an arbitrary time and labor amount, with no details as to
the actual scope of the job, what was actually being paid for, what materials were being
paid for, lacked any specifics, and was otherwise a sham of an estimate.
54. That the estimate that was prepared by BANKERS’ plumber was such that
would have been rejected by the carrier as being entirely insufficient, had such an
estimate been submitted by an insured.
55. That the insured raised the issue of it being completely unclear what was
being paid for, what the scope of the adjusted loss was, and demanded a more concise
recitation of the claim and plumbing adjustment, to no avail.
56. That the adjustment provided by BANKERS with regard to the radiant
heating system fails to provide enough information to enable the Plaintiff to even
consider any other options other than litigation, such as appraisal, as it is impossible to
decipher in fact from the radiant heating and plumbing estimate whether there remains a
pricing dispute, a scope dispute, a coverage dispute, or something else.
57. BANKERS has been intentionally vague in this regard, forcing Plaintiff to
initiate a lawsuit to recover what is rightfully due to him.
The Vandalism/Theft - Additional Living Expenses and Failures
58. That notwithstanding the outstanding disputes regarding the status of the
Sandy claim and the carrier’s failure to procure an alternative premises following Sandy,
the vandalism/theft losses resulted in the property remaining uninhabitable and unusable.
59. That immediately following the vandalism/theft losses, and similar to the
demand made following Sandy, the Plaintiff requested an alternative premises.
60. That consistent with the common practice by Insurance Companies as set
forth above, BANKERS affirmatively undertook to procure an alternative premises for
the Plaintiff with similar amenities to the insured premises,
61. While there was no dispute with regard to BANKERS undertaking to
procure an alternative premises and pay the rental fees directly, BANKERS delayed and
prolonged the process for months, without regard for the fact that the Plaintiff had lost the
use of his property and was being damaged as a result.
62. That the delay was also due to BANKERS’ bad faith, prolonged
“negotiating” with regard to the rental rates, desire to avoid additional cost and expense
to BANKERS, and bureaucratic failure.
63. That BANKERS did finally procure an alternative premises from the
months of March, 2014 through May, 2014 located at 160 Ox Pasture Road in
Southampton, New York.
64. That the location procured by the BANKERS’ agents had substantially
similar amenities to the insured premises, albeit lacking some material amenities,
specifically it did not contain home theaters and was not a waterfront property.
65. That the off-season rental rate paid by the BANKERS for the only home
its agents could locate with substantially similar amenities was approximately one
hundred twenty five thousand dollars ($125,000.00) per month for a total of over three
hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($375,000.00) for the duration of the lease.
66. Notwithstanding the payment of additional living expenses, BANKERS
failed to reimburse Plaintiff for all of the additional living expenses incurred at the 160
Ox Pasture Road residence in excess of his ordinary expenses at the subject property.
The Termination of ALE
67. That, in connection with the vandalism loss, a dispute remained as to the
proper manner to make repairs to the property so that it is returned to like kind condition
as prior to the loss.
68. That BANKERS displayed bad faith by determining that the period of
restoration for the radiant heating system ended in May, 2014.
69. That such a short period of restoration and the termination of additional
living benefits was predicated upon a frivolous, bad faith, and unsupported assertion that
the radiant heating system pipe runs could be patched; as opposed to replaced, and the
sham of an insurance company adjustment/estimate set forth above.
70. That the replacement of the radiant heating system is warranted so as to
return the property to its pre-loss condition, as set forth above.
71. That the determination by BANKERS that a patchwork repair was
sufficient was not predicated upon the facts and opinions of qualified professionals but a
realization by BANKERS that, in addition to increased cost of repair, the period of
restoration would be significantly prolonged and additional living expenses would
continue to accrue.
72. That the actual period of restoration to restore the property to its pre-loss
condition had BANKERS promptly paid for the proper repairs would have extended at
what it had determined, estimated to be at least six to eight months longer and
definitively through the Summer Season.
73. The result of such a bad faith determination is that the Plaintiff continues
to be damaged in an amount equal to the fair use and occupancy rate for the property,
which equals the fair rental rate for the entire proper period of restoration, less those sums
payable as Lost Rents.
The Vandalism Lost Rents
74. That as stated above, the property was held for rental by the Plaintiff for
the Summer 2014 season.
75. That the period of restoration for the proper repairs would have extended
beyond the Summer 2014 season, resulting in Plaintiff losing the fair market rental value
of the property.
76. That the fair market value rental for the insured premises for the entire
Summer 2014 season is estimated to be no less than one million five hundred thousand
dollars ($1,500,000.00) from Memorial Day through Labor Day.
77. That BANKERS’ bad faith, delays and failures caused Plaintiff to be
damaged, in an amount equal to the fair use and occupancy rate for the property, which
equals the fair rental rate for the Summer 2014 season.
The Electronics and Home Automation Bad Faith
78. That throughout the claim process, Defendant repeatedly sent unqualified
individuals to appraise and adjust the damage at the Property.
79. The adjustments provided by those unqualified individuals, specifically
including the carrier’s vendor who adjusted the damaged to the electronics and home
automation systems at the Property was both unlicensed as an independent adjuster and
failed to articulate a clear and concise adjustment of that portion of the claim.
80. That the carrier’s unlicensed and unqualified adjuster failed to provide
such fundamental information such as a clear status of holdback funds, making it unclear
what was actually paid for and what was recoverable by the insured.
81. When a response was demanded with regard to the status of certain funds
clearly indicated to be a holdback by the carrier’s unlicensed and unqualified electronics
adjuster, the carrier refused to answer and rather denied that portion of the claim based
upon “non-cooperation” by the insured’s electronics and home automation contractor.
82. That such a denial is entirely in bad faith given that the insured’s
electronics and home automation contractor was not an insured under the policy and was
merely the contractor retained by the insured to provide estimates and/or perform the
work when appropriate.
83. That such a denial is entirely in bad faith given that BANKERS’ own
representative should have been qualified to perform the adjustment on his own, without
the assistance of the insured’s contractor, who had no representative role in the claim
process.
84. That such a denial is entirely in bad faith given that BANKERS failed to
take any substantive steps to advise Plaintiff that any perceived failures by the insured’s
contractor or that any such difficulties would result in a denial of a portion of the claim,
in violation of the well settled law in New York.
85. That BANKERS failed to take any substantive steps necessary to bring
about the cooperation of the insured, advise the insured of a substantive issue, or any
other steps which would be deemed conditions precedent to denial based upon noncooperation
as a matter of law.

THE SANDY CLAIM- GENERAL FACTS
86. That by virtue of the foregoing, Defendant breached the contract of
insurance between the parties with regard to the Sandy Claim.
87. That by virtue of the foregoing, with regard to the Sandy Claim Plaintiff
has sustained actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in
excess of four million dollars ($4,000,000.00) and has sustained consequential damages
in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four million dollars
($4,000,000.00).
88. That Plaintiff notified Defendant BANKERS, its subsidiary, and/or agent
of the occurrence at the aforementioned property and of the aforementioned loss
sustained thereby.
89. That Plaintiff has submitted to the Defendant’s request for a complete
examination of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the loss, to the extent that
such was requested by Defendant.
90. That Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to the instant suit.
91. At all times mentioned, Plaintiff has not obtained any other insurance
upon the described property.
92. By reason of Defendant BANKERS’ contractual undertaking to Plaintiff,
pursuant to the Policy, to properly evaluate and pay claims thereunder to the extent of
Plaintiff’s loss up to the limits prescribed by the Policy, BANKERS, owed and continues
to owe Plaintiff the duties of good faith and fair dealing in connection with the parties’
contractual relationship.
93. In accordance with the aforesaid duties of good faith and fair dealing,
BANKERS was and is prohibited from undertaking any act which would have the effect
of injuring or destroying Plaintiff’s rights driving from their contractual relationship with
BANKERS under the Policy with regard to the Sandy Claim.

THE VANDALISM/THEFT CLAIMS GENERAL FACTS
94. That by virtue of the foregoing, Defendant breached the contract of
insurance between the parties with regard to the Vandalism/Theft Claims.
95. That by virtue of the foregoing, with regard to the Vandalism/Theft
Claims, Plaintiff has sustained actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial but
believed to be in excess of four million dollars ($4,000,000.00) and has sustained
consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess
of four million dollars ($4,000,000.00).
96. That Plaintiff notified Defendant BANKERS, its subsidiary, and/or agent
of the occurrence at the aforementioned property and of the aforementioned losses
sustained thereby.
97. That Plaintiff has submitted to the Defendant’s request for a complete
examination of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the loss, to the extent that
such was requested by Defendant.
98. That Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to the instant suit.
99. At all times mentioned, Plaintiff has not obtained any other insurance
upon the described property.
100. By reason of Defendant BANKERS’ contractual undertaking to Plaintiff,
pursuant to the Policy, to properly evaluate and pay claims thereunder to the extent of
Plaintiffs loss up to the limits prescribed by the Policy, BANKERS, owed and continues
to owe Plaintiff the duties of good faith and fair dealing in connection with the parties’
contractual relationship,
101. In accordance with the aforesaid duties of good faith and fair dealing,
BANKERS was and is prohibited from undertaking any act which would have the effect
of injuring or destroying Plaintiffs rights driving from their contractual relationship with
BANKERS under the Policy with regard to the Vandalism/Theft Claims.

AND AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT- SANDY CLAIM
102. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all allegations in the instant Verified
Complaint as if more fully and completely set forth herein.
103. By, inter alia, failing to pay Plaintiff under the Policy to the full extent of
Plaintiff’s loss and various breaches including those set forth above, Defendant
BANKERS has breached its obligation under the Policy with regard to the loss which
occurred on or about October 29, 2014 caused by wind storm and power surge and
resulting damage at the Property.
104. By, inter alia, failing to procure an alternative property as Defendant
represented it would, consistent with common practice in the insurance industry with
regard to residential claims; Defendant breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing.
105. As a result of Defendant’s breach to date. Plaintiff has been damaged in an
amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four million dollars
($4,000,000.00), plus appropriate interest.
106. As a further result of Defendant BANKERS’ breach and the bad faith as
set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered additional consequential damages in an amount to
be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four million dollars ($4,000,000.00).

AND AS FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT- SANDY CLAIM
107. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all allegations in the instant Verified
Complaint as if more completely and fully set forth herein.
108. The rights, status and other legal relations to Plaintiff and Defendant are
uncertain and the entry of declaratory judgment by this Court will resolve the uncertainty
and controversy that have given rise to this proceeding.
19
109. That Plaintiff’s legally protectable interest under the Policy is present and
such interest is directly at issue, by virtue of there being unresolved portions of Plaintiff s
total claim separate and apart from those portions of the claim improperly denied and
those consequential damages stemming from Defendant’s bad faith conduct.
110. That Plaintiff seeks and is entitled to a declaratory judgment setting forth
that Defendant BANKERS is now and continues to be bound by, must abide by, and must
perform in accordance with all covenants, provisions, forms, and endorsements as set
forth in the above-referenced Policy as it/they pertain to the subject loss(es), including,
but not limited to indemnifying Plaintiff for the full extent of his covered loss, up the
policy limits,

AND AS FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF GENERAL BUSINESS LAW S 349 - SANDY CLAIM
111. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all allegations set forth in the instant
Verified Complaint as if more completely and fully set forth herein.
112. Insurance Company, and its agents, servants and/or employees, are
governed by the regulations promulgated by the superintendent of insurance of the New
York State Insurance Department as set forth in 11 NYCRR § 216.
113. In addition, Insurance Company, and its agents, servants and/or
employees, are prohibited from engaging in deceptive acts and practices pursuant to
General Business Law § 349 of the State of New York.
114. Moreover, General Business Law § 349 prohibits deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any
service in the State of New York and making such acts and practices unlawful.
115. Insurance Company, through its agents, servants and/or employees, has
engaged in deceptive acts and practices in violation of General Business Law § 349 of
New York by its bad faith interpretation of the insurance contract with Plaintiff(s),
specifically regarding the procurement of alternative premises following the Sandy Loss,
the representations of the Insurance Company, and the conduct set forth above.
116. That the interplay between the language of most insurance policies which
calls for reimbursement of incurred additional living expenses and the common and
accepted practice of an insurance carrier procuring an alternative premises and paying
directly, without the insured actually incurring any expense, is one which potentially
affects every single insurance policy with alternative living expense coverage.
117. That the interplay between the language of most insurance policies which
calls for reimbursement of incurred additional living expenses and the common and
accepted practice of an insurance carrier procuring an alternative premises and paying
directly, without the insured actually incurring any expense, is one which potentially
affects most residential insurance policies.
118. That the bad faith failure of the insurer to procure an alternative premises
notwithstanding its representation that it would do so, and upon which an insured relies,
ultimately deprives an insured of the use and value of the Property.
119. That the practice of representing to an insured that a carrier would
undertake to procure an alternative residence, failure to do so and then denial of the
alternative living expense claim based upon on expenses being actually “incurred” is one
that affects the public at large.
120. Insurance Company, through its agents, servants and/or employees, has
engaged in deceptive acts and practices in violation of General Business Law § 349 of
New York, as is evidenced by the foregoing conduct and deceptive claims handling.
21
121. The aforementioned actions, policies, patterns of conduct, and failures by
BANKERS have not only caused injury to Plaintiff(s), but have the potential to harm the
public at large.
122. Insurance Company's outrageous actions demonstrate that degree of bad
faith evincing a disingenuous, dishonest failure to carry out a contractual obligation,
arising to a criminal indifference to its civil obligations.
123. As a result of the aforesaid violations of General Business Law § 349 of
the State of New York, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial
but believed to be in excess of four million dollars ($4,000,000.00), plus appropriate
interest, along with consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but
believed to be in excess of four million dollars ($4,000,000.00).
124. As a further result of Insurance Company's violations of General Business
Law § 349 of the State of New York, Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees.
125. Further, due to the willful and wanton nature of Insurance Company's
conduct and the need to deter same to prevent public harm and injury, Plaintiffs)
demands punitive damages in the amount of ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00).

AND AS FOR FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT- VANDALISM/THEFT LOSSES
126. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all allegations in the instant Verified
Complaint as if more fully and completely set forth herein.
127. By, inter alia, failing to pay Plaintiff under the Policy to the full extent of
Plaintiffs loss and various breaches including those set forth above, Defendant
BANKERS has breached its obligation under the Policy with regard to the losses caused
e a s e 2:14-cv-07095-JS-~AKT Document 1-2 Filed 12/04/14 Page 23 of 28 PagelD #: 2&
by vandal ism/theft and resulting damage at the Property.
128. By, inter alia, failing to procure an alternative property as Defendant
represented it would, consistent with common practice in the insurance industry with
regard to residential claims; Defendant breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing.
129. As a result of Defendant’s breach to date, Plaintiff has been damaged in an
amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four million dollars
($4,000,000.00), plus appropriate interest.
130. As a further result of Defendant BANKERS’ breach and the bad faith as
set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered additional consequential damages directly resulting
from BANKERS’ in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of
four million dollars ($4,000,000.00).

AND AS FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT- VANDALISM/THEFT LOSSES
131. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all allegations in the instant Verified
Complaint as if more completely and fully set forth herein.
132. The rights, status and other legal relations to Plaintiff and Defendant are
uncertain and the entry of declaratory judgment by this Court will resolve the uncertainty
and controversy that have given rise to this proceeding.
133. That Plaintiffs legally protectable interest under the Policy is present and
such interest is directly at issue, by virtue of there being unresolved portions of Plaintiffs
total claim separate and apart from those portions of the claim improperly denied and
those consequential damages stemming from Defendant’s bad faith conduct.
134. That Plaintiff seeks and is entitled to a declaratory judgment setting forth
that Defendant BANKERS is now and continues to be bound by, must abide by, and must
in accordance with all covenants, provisions, forms, and endorsements as set
forth in the above-referenced Policy as it/they pertain to the subject loss(es), including,
. but not limited to indemnifying Plaintiff for the full extent of his covered loss, up the
policy limits.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff YUCEL EDEBALI, demands judgment against
Defendant BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, as follows:
a. Under the FIRST Cause of Action, damages in amount to be determined at
trial but believed to be in excess of four million dollars ($4,000,000.00), plus Il
consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess
of four million dollars ($4,000,000.00);
b. Under the SECOND Cause of Action, a declaratory judgment setting forth
that Defendant BANKERS is now and continues to be bound by, must abide by, and must
perform in accordance with all covenants, provisions, forms, and endorsements as set
forth in the above-referenced policy as it/they pertain to the subject loss(es), including,
but not limited to indemnifying Plaintiff for the full extent of his covered loss, up to the
I policy limits, and;
c. Under the THIRD Cause of Action, damages in amount to be determined
at trial but believed to be in excess of four million dollars ($4,000,000.00), plus
consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess
of four million dollars ($4,000,000.00), punitive damages in the amount of ten million
dollars ($10,000,000.00);
d. Under the FOURTH Cause of Action, damages in amount to be
determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four million dollars ($4,000,000.00),
plus consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in
excess of four million dollars ($4,000,000.00);
e. Under the FIFTH Cause of Action, a declaratory judgment setting forth
that Defendant BANKERS is now and continues to be bound by, must abide by, and must
perform in accordance with all covenants, provisions, forms, and endorsements as set
forth in the above-referenced policy as it/they pertain to the subject loss(es), including,
but not limited to indemnifying Plaintiff for the full extent of his covered loss, up to the
policy limits;
f. Appropriate interest, the costs and disbursements of this action, reasonable
attorneys’ fees; and
g. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.