177 A.D.2d 373 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1991
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered April 27, 1990, which, inter alia, granted that part of defendant Blue Cross
Plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant hospital (which seeks recovery of medical expenses from plaintiffs in a separate action), and against defendant BCBS, which had insured plaintiffs’ decedent under a health insurance contract providing major medical benefits. Pursuant to this contract, BCBS paid Montefiore Hospital for the decedent’s hospital care through May 2, 1984. BCBS refused to pay the remainder of the bill, claiming that the decedent did not require acute care after that date and thus was not covered. In September, 1984, after BCBS notified the hospital that it would not pay for hospital care subsequent to May 2, 1984, the decedent was transferred to another facility where she died two days later. Montefiore then sued plaintiffs for the unpaid hospital charges.
In their first cause of action plaintiffs seek a declaration that BCBS is obligated to pay for decedent’s hospital care from May 3, 1984 until the time of her death and that they were entitled to legal fees and expenses in connection with their defense of the underlying action. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to such legal fees is an issue of first impression. It is well established that the non-breaching party in a breach of contract case can recover damages that are the natural and probable consequence of the breach. (Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 73 NY2d 312, 319.) In the event of an insurer’s refusal to pay the hospital expenses of an insured, the provider will seek payment directly from the insured. Given the staggering costs of hospital care and the widespread reliance on insurance to pay such costs, it is reasonable to conclude that an insured would be unable to pay these costs and that the hospital would commence an action to recover them. Thus, we are of the view that the attorneys’ fees ultimately incurred by plaintiffs in defense of Montefiore’s action can be regarded as "damages which are the natural and probable consequence of the breach” (supra, at 319) and are thereby recoverable.
In their second cause of action, the individual plaintiffs allege that they were caused to suffer "substantial” mental