In a breach of contract class action involving homeowner's insurance premiums, district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss is reversed in part where: 1) the court properly dismissed a claim under New York Insurance Law sec. 3425.5 as the conditional notice requirements of the statute were not triggered; 2) the court erred in dismissing plaintiff's breach of contract action as defendant's explanation for the increase in his coverage amounts and premiums does not resolve the ambiguity of the terms in the policy and does not adequately refute plaintiff's claim that the increases were not based on current costs and values, and thus plaintiff has met the standard necessary to resist the motion to dismiss; 3) the voluntary payment doctrine cannot stand as an alternate basis for dismissal of plaintiff's claim; and 4) the court properly dismissed plaintiff's deceptive business practices claim under New York General Business Law sec. 349 as plaintiff failed to plead a sufficient injury under the statute.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Argued: September 17, 2008
Decided: July 28, 2009
Before: WALKER, KATZMANN, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by GIBSON, Circuit Judge.