In Bi-Economy Mkt., Inc. v. Harleysville Ins. Co. of N.Y., 10 NY 3d 187 [2008]) the Court permitted an insured to seek consequential damages based on allegations of the insurer's failure to fulfill its obligations under the insurance contract by delaying payment and denying coverage thereunder (id. at 192-95). The insured had obtained a commercial property insurance policy that included business interruption coverage and was seeking consequential damages for the collapse of its business resulting from the insurer's failure to meet its obligations under the insurance contract. The Court began its discussion with the principle that a nonbreaching party to a contract may recover general damages for the natural and probable consequences of a breach, and that special or consequential damages also may be available for foreseeable and probable risks (id. at 192-93). It then stated that in determining if consequential damages were reasonably contemplated by the parties, it must examine the nature, purpose and particular known circumstances of the contract, and the "liability the defendant fairly may be supposed to have assumed consciously, or to have warranted the plaintiff reasonably to suppose that it assumed, when the contract was made" (id. at 193 [internal quotation omitted]). The Court found that a reasonable insured would understand that the insurer was promising to investigate in good faith and pay covered claims and that an insured may also bargain for comfort, peace of mind and risk aversion (id. at 194). It further reasoned that, in many circumstances, business policy holders may lack the resources to continue business operations without insurance proceeds (id. at 194-95). Thus, "limiting an insured's damages to the amount of the policy, i.e., money which should have been paid by the insurer in the first place, plus interest, does not place the insured in the position it would have been in had the contract been performed" (id. at 195 [internal citations omitted]). In addition, the Court determined that the policy exclusion for consequential loss did not bar recovery for consequential damages (id. at 196). Accordingly, it denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the consequential damages claim.