| AIU Ins. Co. v Robert Plan Corp. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07377 [44 AD3d 355] |
| October 4, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| AIU Insurance Company et al., Appellants, v The RobertPlan Corporation et al., Respondents. The Robert Plan Corporation et al., CounterclaimPlaintiffs-Respondents, v American International Group, Inc., et al., CounterclaimDefendants-Appellants. |
—[*1] Kostelanetz & Fink, LLP, New York (Brian C. Willie of counsel), forrespondents/respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered December 27, 2006,which, upon reargument, adhered to a prior order, same court and Justice, entered August 11,2006, granting the motion of defendant The Robert Plan (TRP) Corporation for a preliminaryinjunction compelling plaintiff AIU Insurance Company (AIU) to give it access to certain claimsand actuarial information, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the August 11, 2006order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the December 27,2006 order.
The court properly determined that TRP demonstrated that it was entitled to injunctive reliefand compelled AIU to provide TRP with access to the information being sought. The relevantagreement between the parties is clear that TRP was to have access to the data that pertained topolicies it had administered even after termination of the agreement, and the court appropriatelydeclined to adopt the interpretation of the agreement set forth by AIU because such aninterpretation would strain the language of the contract beyond its reasonable and ordinarymeaning (Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v United Coastal Ins. Co., 216 AD2d 137[1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 808 [1996]). TRP also established that it would be irreparablyharmed if not provided with the information, which was critical to its business, and in light of thedifficulty and uncertainty in calculating the future damages it would suffer as a result of AIU'sbreach of the agreement (see Pfizer Inc. v PCS Health Sys., 234 AD2d 18 [1996]). Abalancing of the [*2]equities, as well as the need to preserve thestatus quo between the parties, further warrants the relief granted by the court.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ. [See 14Misc 3d 1216(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 52536(U).]