District Judge William F. Kuntz, II

Read Full-Text Decision

Plaintiff Maspeth Federal’s diversity action claimed Fid. Info. Servs. (FIS) breach of two contracts under which FIS provided lockbox and remittance processing services to Maspeth. Maspeth claimed FIS’s lockbox servicing procedures were incompatible with its late fee policy, so that Maspeth’s customers were improperly assessed late fees that it ultimately refunded in order to settle a class action suit by its customers. Maspeth sought recovery of “no less than $857,130.95″ comprising both the late fees it had refunded its customers, and attorneys’ fees associated with the class action lawsuit. Only partly dismissing suit, the court ruled Maspeth pleaded all required elements of a contract breach claim, but that its claim for contractual indemnification fell outside the scope of the parties’ indemnification agreements. Also, Maspeth’s claims for gross negligence and common law indemnification duplicated its contract breach claims and thus, were barred under New York law. Like its contract-based claims, Maspeth’s gross negligence claim was grounded on alleged duties arising directly from the parties’ two agreements, which explicitly waived recovery of consequential damages and thus, permitted only general damages.

District Judge William F. Kuntz, II

Read Full-Text Decision

Plaintiff Maspeth Federal’s diversity action claimed Fid. Info. Servs. (FIS) breach of two contracts under which FIS provided lockbox and remittance processing services to Maspeth. Maspeth claimed FIS’s lockbox servicing procedures were incompatible with its late fee policy, so that Maspeth’s customers were improperly assessed late fees that it ultimately refunded in order to settle a class action suit by its customers. Maspeth sought recovery of “no less than $857,130.95″ comprising both the late fees it had refunded its customers, and attorneys’ fees associated with the class action lawsuit. Only partly dismissing suit, the court ruled Maspeth pleaded all required elements of a contract breach claim, but that its claim for contractual indemnification fell outside the scope of the parties’ indemnification agreements. Also, Maspeth’s claims for gross negligence and common law indemnification duplicated its contract breach claims and thus, were barred under New York law. Like its contract-based claims, Maspeth’s gross negligence claim was grounded on alleged duties arising directly from the parties’ two agreements, which explicitly waived recovery of consequential damages and thus, permitted only general damages.