Opinion ID: 178744
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Deceptive Practices Argument

Text: Wilson advances a deceptive practices argument in relation to both policies. New York law provides that [d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state are hereby declared unlawful. N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW § 349(a) (McKinney 1996). To maintain a cause of action under § 349, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defendant's conduct is consumer-oriented; (2) that the defendant is engaged in a deceptive act or practice; and (3) that the plaintiff was injured by this practice. Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank. N.A., 85 N.Y.2d 20, 623 N.Y.S.2d 529, 532-33, 647 N.E.2d 741 (1995); see also Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 3 N.Y.3d 200, 785 N.Y.S.2d 399, 402, 818 N.E.2d 1140 (2004). The consumer-oriented requirement may be satisfied by showing that the conduct at issue potentially affect[s] similarly situated consumers. Oswego Laborers ', 623 N.Y.S.2d at 533, 647 N.E.2d 741. Although consumer-oriented conduct does not require a repetition or pattern of deceptive conduct, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the acts or practices have a broader impact on consumers at large. Id. at 532, 647 N.E.2d 741. Accordingly, New York courts have recognized that [p]rivate contract disputes between the parties do not fall within the ambit of the statute. Id.; see Harary v. Allstate Ins. Co., 983 F.Supp. 95, 98 (E.D.N.Y.1997) (Private contractual disputes are usually not within [§ 349] because they are unique to the parties. (internal quotation marks omitted)); MaGee v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 954 F.Supp. 582, 586 (E.D.N.Y.1997) ([T]he injury must be to the public generally as distinguished from the plaintiff alone.); Teller v. Bill Hayes, Ltd., 213 A.D.2d 141, 630 N.Y.S.2d 769, 772 (1995) ([T]he deceptive act or practice may not be limited to just the parties.). Further, [a]n insurance company's actions in settling a claim are not inherently consumer-oriented. Greenspan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 937 F.Supp. 288, 294 (S.D.N.Y.1996). Therefore, to demonstrate the requisite consumer-oriented conduct in a dispute concerning coverage under an insurance policy, a plaintiff must establish facts showing injury or potential injury to the public, and when such facts are missing, summary judgment in favor of the insurer is warranted. This action is unique to the parties. Wilson argues that Northwestern's conduct would have a direct effect on consumers at large; however, Wilson makes this argument based on her claim that Northwestern breached, in bad faith, the policies as they were applicable to Kenneth's situation not that Northwestern has a policy of issuing policies that are deceptive. Moreover, any suggestion that Northwestern has a practice of backdating cancellations is unsupported beyond Kenneth's situation in this case. There is no evidence that Northwestern, in bad faith, systematically backdates all cancellations in order to avoid insurance obligations.