Legal Opinion
Russo v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
New York Supreme Court
Decided August 5, 2002PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*350OPINION OF THE COURT
Walter J. Relihan, Jr., J.
The plaintiff moves again for class certification in this “vanishing premium” case. Plaintiffs earlier motion (Nov. 1998) was denied on the assumption, in part, that section 349 of the General Business Law simply restated the common law of fraudulent inducement which requires not only reliance upon a false or misleading representation, but also that the reliance was reasonable under the circumstances (Russo v Massachusetts Mut. Ins. Co., 178 Misc 2d 772). However, in December 1999 the Court of Appeals made plain that section 349 created a new and…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Goshen v. Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
- Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Stutman v. Chemical BankNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
- Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Gaidon v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re Linerboard Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2004
- DeFilippo v. Mutual Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Gaidon v. Guardian Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003