A federal court decided in 2019 that "injury in fact" for standing purposes in federal court is effectively the same thing as the plausbility of stating a claim.
On a motion to dismiss, the federal court explained its ruling in the context of whether an "injury in fact" was alleged in an action involving a consumer protection statute in New York State, N.Y. General Business Law § 349. The Court wrote about the plausibility of stating a substantive claim under the New York statute with the same approach as it wrote about the plausibility of stating a claim of concrete and particularized injury for standing purposes, at least in a case of alleged "economic injury," namely, overpaying based on the defendant's alleged affirmative misrepresentations. See Cummings v. FCA US LLC, 401 F. Supp. 3d 288, 304, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2019).
The issue of Injury in Fact Standing in Federal Court in Insurance Bad Faith cases is discussed, along with the Cummings case, in two sections of LITIGATION AND PREVENTION OF INSURER BAD FAITH, one regarding Third-Party Bad Faith Cases and the other section addressing First-Party Bad Faith cases. Third-Party situations are examined in Section 3:28.50 in 1 DENNIS J. WALL, LITIGATION AND PREVENTION OF INSURER BAD FAITH, and First-Party cases are put under the legal standing microscope in Section 9:14.50 in volume 2, id. (Thomson Reuters West, 3d Edition, forthcoming 2020 Supplement).
Please read the disclaimer. ©2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments