In Bi-Economy Market v. Harleysville, 10 NY3d 187 (2008) the issue was an insured's consequential damages as a result of the insurance company's failure to fulfill its contractual obligations. Not only does that case involve an issue between an insured and the insurance company--no third parties are in issue--it involves "consequential damages," defined in the text of that case as those damages "which do not so directly flow from the breach.'" (Id. at 192.) Most incredible of all, however, is the opposition papers' citing of non-existent language in Bi-Economy. Hunter's opposition papers reference language in the case stating that consequential damages can "place the third-party in the position it would have been had the contract with the insured been performed." Instead, what the case says is that limiting an insured's recovery to the policy limits, instead of considering additional consequential damages "...does not place the insured in the position it would have been in had the contract been performed." (Id. at 195.)