Piduch v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.

Since the first amended complaint contains no allegation that defendant engaged in any conduct or transactions affecting the general public, the causes of action predicated upon a violation of Insurance Law § 40-d and the request for punitive damages and attorney’s fees should have been dismissed (see, Hubbell v Trans World Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 899, 901; Halpin v Prudential Ins. Co., 48 NY2d 906, 907-908; Uniland Dev. Co. v Home Ins. Co., 97 AD2d 973).

The court also abused its discretion by allowing plaintiff to replead his claim for punitive damages and attorney’s fees. The proposed amendment…