Insurer Bad Faith: Federal Court Confirms New York Bad Faith Claims Reach Third-Party Coverage

Policyholders confronting dilatory claims handling by their insurers received another favorable ruling from a federal court in New York. Almost 20 years ago, the New York Court of Appeals made clear that a policyholder can recover consequential damages arising out of an insurer’s bad faith. See Bi-Econ. Mkt., Inc. v. Harleysville Ins. Co. of N.Y., 10 N.Y.3d 187 (2008); Panasia Ests., Inc. v. Hudson Ins. Co., 10 N.Y.3d 200 (2008). Now, a recent decision from the Southern District of New York dispels the myth that the rule from Bi-Econ. and Panasia only applies to claims under first-party insurance policies. In Renergy, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, No. 25-CV-5073 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2026), the court granted a policyholder leave to amend its complaint to add a cause of action for bad faith claims handling — rejecting the insurer’s argument that such claims are categorically unavailable in the context of a liability policy.  The decision is significant because it confirms New York’s continued trend of recognizing that insurers may be liable for bad faith claims handling.

Background

Renergy, Inc. sought coverage for corrective action costs under an environmental liability insurance policy issued by Mt. Hawley.  According to the complaint — Mt. Hawley engaged in bad faith claims handling by, among other things, issuing duplicative and burdensome document requests, adopting a third-party consultant’s review of the invoices submitted without sufficient independent analysis, and agreeing to pay only a small percentage of the covered corrective action costs. Renergy sought consequential damages, including liens placed on its property by unpaid vendors, late fees and penalties, and lost opportunities to sell the property due to those liens.

Mt. Hawley opposed Renergy’s motion for leave to amend on the sole ground of futility, arguing:

1. New York’s bad faith doctrine is limited to first-party coverage;
2. The bad faith claim was duplicative of the breach of contract claim; and
3. The amended complaint failed to adequately plead consequential damages.

The court rejected each argument.

Key Takeaways

1. Bad Faith Claims Are Not Limited to First-Party Coverage

The Court first rejected the assertion that New York’s bad faith claims handling cases are confined to first-party property policies, citing Rockefeller University v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 231 A.D.3d 457 (1st Dep’t 2024), which “explicitly denied an insurer's motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for bad faith claims handling under a third-party liability policy.”  The court noted the allegations in Rockefeller — including the insurer’s “wait and see strategy” and “gross disregard of plaintiff’s interests”— closely paralleled those in Renergy’s amended complaint and concluded: “New York recognizes bad faith claims handling regardless of whether the claim involves first-party or third-party liability coverage.”

2. Bad Faith Claims Are Not Duplicative Where Handling Conduct Is Distinct from Nonpayment

The Court also rejected the argument that Renergy’s bad faith claim was duplicative of its breach of contract claim, since the breach of contract claim was “based on the pure denial of insurance coverage” while the bad faith claim was “based entirely on Defendant's handling of the claim.”  The Court noted the amended complaint allegations going well beyond mere nonpayment, including: failure to conduct a fair investigation, reliance on inadequate claims-handling review, repetitive and unnecessary document demands, shifting coverage positions after years of claim activity, and unsupported statements concerning the insured's conduct. The court found that “overlap to some extent with the coverage dispute” did not render the claim duplicative because the alleged claims-handling misconduct and the resulting damages were “not confined to the bare nonpayment of policy benefits.” 

3. Consequential Damages Need Not Be Specifically Addressed in the Policy

Finally, the court rejected the argument that the amended complaint failed to adequately plead consequential damages, finding the allegations concerning vendor late fees, penalties, liens, and lost sale opportunities constituted specific downstream damages that were foreseeable to the parties.  Further, the “very nature of these downstream consequences render it plausible that they flowed from Defendant's alleged failure to cover Plaintiff's damages under the Policy and its delay in handling the claim.” 

Renergy is the latest in a line of New York decisions strengthening policyholder remedies and reinforcing the principles set forth in Rockefeller University. Together, these decisions send a clear message to insurers: dilatory and unfair claims handling tactics carry real consequences.  Policyholders should carefully document any patterns of delay, such as unreasonable and duplicative information requests, and consult with coverage counsel if they suspect an insurer is seeking to minimize its financial exposure rather than fairly evaluate a claim.  As Renergy observes, consequential damages are recoverable where an insurer’s bad faith claims handling causes downstream business consequences beyond the mere nonpayment of policy benefits.

© 2026 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. It may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

This Barnes & Thornburg LLP publication should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own lawyer on any specific legal questions you may have concerning your situation.