The Appellate Court reiterated that “even if the plaintiff were a beneficiary under this godfather’s will, “the plaintiff is precluded from filing a direct claim against the defendant absent an assignment of rights.”
The court clear
ly disagreed with the plaintiff’s assertion on appeal “that he is an implied or expressed third-party beneficiary who can pursue his claims under a common law theory of tort liability.”
The Appellate Division said the record demonstrated “the essential prerequisites for a finding of common law tort liability are entirely absent. There was nothing demonstrating the insurer breached any duty to the third party/godson.”
Conclusion
The Appellate court ultimately found that there was “no basis, including public policy considerations, on which to conclude that plaintiff is a third-party beneficiary, who was owed a duty by the defendant.”
