Opinion ID: 374048
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: George Berkowitz

Text: 41 The jury's finding as to Berkowitz is more troubling. Berkowitz did not speak with anyone in the Hospital administration nor check any of the Hospital records to determine the insurance coverage, instead relying solely upon the statements of Christopher and John McGrath. We could easily hold that Berkowitz was negligent, perhaps even grossly negligent, in so failing to check or in so relying; but there is, we think, insufficient evidence to permit a jury to find recklessness or a representation stated to be true on the personal knowledge of the representer. 42 Indeed, we note that plaintiffs in fact did not premise their action against Berkowitz on the theory that he had intentionally or even recklessly misrepresented the amount of the insurance coverage. Both Charlotte Slotkin and Toberoff testified that they did not believe that Berkowitz had lied. Rather, Mrs. Slotkin stated that he just didn't know any better about any of the insurance companies; and Toberoff stated that it was my impression that George Berkowitz may have been guilty of a fraudulent representation in that he was grossly careless. Furthermore, plaintiffs do not make a claim against Berkowitz for a representation of absolute knowledge. Their reference to the record discloses, insofar as Berkowitz is concerned, only the testimony on deposition by Berkowitz that he told Toberoff after conversing with the McGraths that he was informed that there was $200,000 insurance. 43 Finally, we note that Berkowitz not only had no motive to conceal the excess insurance; but rather, to protect the Hospital, he had every reason to seek to tap whatever insurance coverage there might have been. His unawareness of the excess insurance is evident in his statement to Justice Williams that because he believed that the Hospital itself would be liable above the $200,000 limit, he wanted the record to reflect bad faith on the part of the insurance carrier if it failed to settle the case within the $200,000 limit. The district court itself noted the extraordinarily thin reed on which it is suggested that there may be a claim against Berkowitz, and we hold that the court did not err in recognizing this lack of evidence in granting Berkowitz's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.