In response to that denial of coverage, plaintiffs commenced this action. Their complaint sets forth two causes of action sounding in breach of contract. As noted, plaintiffs now seek summary judgment in their favor. Defendants oppose that relief, any by cross-motion, seek partial summary judgment dismissing the claims for punitive damages and attorney's fees. According to plaintiffs, as the beneficiaries under the policy, they are entitled to payment of that additional sum because their father was a fare-paying passenger who died while on the cruise.
Defendants take a contrary view.
First, they contend that under policy language which they assert to be entirely clear in meaning, the decedent was not entitled to the additional benefits because his death did not occur while he was riding, boarding or alighting from the cruise ship. In addition, they assert that it would be improper to grant summary judgment at this time because they have not been afforded the discovery they seek concerning the nature and location of the scuba excursion, the decedent's status as a fare-paying passenger and the information sent to the decedent when he was solicited to purchase the insurance policy by his bank. Upon review of the papers submitted, the Court rejects defendants' arguments. Notwithstanding defendants' alleged need for discovery as to the fare status of decedent, defendants offer no basis to conclude that the decedent was anything other than a passenger whose fare had been paid by someone, in this case, his girlfriend. Nor is any discovery required in order to resolve the issue of whether the decedent's death occurred under circumstances which would trigger defendants' obligation to pay the double indemnify benefits.