MetLife Auto & Home v. Joe Basil Chevrolet, Inc., 2004 N.Y. Int. 0025 (Feb. 24, 2004).

EVIDENCE - SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE - THIRD PARTY - CAUSE OF ACTION - TORT

ISSUE & DISPOSITION

Issue(s)

Whether a third party commits a tort in New York when they negligently destroy or spoil evidence, thereby impairing a claim or defense, where the third party had no notice of an impending lawsuit and the party seeking preservation did not make an effort to preserve the evidence through a court order or written agreement.

Disposition

No. So long as the third party owed no duty to the primary parties to preserve the evidence, a third party cannot be held liable in tort for negligent spoliation of evidence.

SUMMARY

Defendant lent an automobile to Michael Basil. The car caught fire and caused $330,000 in property damage to Basil’s home. Defendant’s insurance carrier, Royal, indemnified Defendant and took possession of the car. Subsequently, Royal informally agreed to preserve the car in a telephone conversation with Plaintiff, Basil’s insurer. Plaintiff, seeking to recover from a series of entities on Defendant’s behalf, arranged a testing of the vehicle seven months later. Prior to the test, Royal notified Plaintiff that the car had been destroyed. Plaintiff then sought monetary damages against Royal for "irrevocably impairing [Plaintiff’s] right to pursue successfully the defendants…." Supreme Court granted Royal’s motion to dismiss because New York does not recognize a cause of action for spoliation of evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the facts here did not constitute the tort of negligent spoliation of evidence.

Initially, the Court noted that imposing sanctions under C.P.L.R. § 3126 was the traditional method of dealing with spoliation of evidence issues. Then the Court distinguished DiDomenico v. C &S Aeromatik Supplies, Inc., 252 A.D.2d 41 (2d Dep’t 1998), which permitted a third-party spoliation claim, because, in this case, Plaintiff did not seek to preserve the car beyond the informal phone call with Royal. The Court said Plaintiff could have sought a court order protecting the evidence. The Court acknowledged a number of cases that deny a cause of action for spoliation of evidence. See Monteiro v. R.D. Werner Co, Inc., 301 A.D.2d 636 (2d Dep’t 2003); Ripepe v. Crown Equip Corp., 293 A.D.2d 462 (2d Dep’t 2002); Curran v. Auto Lab Serv. Ctr., 280 A.D.2d 636 (2d Dep’t 2001). Finally, the Court noted that Royal owed no duty to preserve the vehicle because Royal owned the vehicle and nothing in its relationship with Plaintiff created a duty. The Court did not recognize a cause of action due to the lack of a duty, the difficulty of assessing damages, and the burden of forcing a party to preserve evidence when it had no knowledge of an impending lawsuit. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the order of the Appellate Division.

Prepared by the liibulletin-ny editorial board.