No-Fault Case Law

In this case, the court considered the issue of whether the defendant, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, had established a lack of coverage for the plaintiff's assignor to deny the claim for first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant moved for summary judgment based on the claim that it had not issued an insurance policy covering the assignor, thus rendering him ineligible for benefits. The court found that the evidence submitted by the defendant, specifically an affidavit from a claims adjuster from a related entity, was inadequate to demonstrate that the assignor was not covered. The court concluded that the affidavit did not satisfactorily establish the claims adjuster's employment relationship with the defendant or specify any records search to support the lack of coverage assertion. As a result, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

In this case, the court considered the defendant's motion to dismiss based on claims of lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it was an out-of-state company not authorized to conduct business in New York, and that it had not properly been served. The Civil Court denied this motion, finding that the defendant failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence to support its claims, specifically citing deficiencies in the affidavit and documentation submitted by the defendant. The court also noted the existence of material factual issues regarding whether the defendant conducts business in New York. Ultimately, the appellate court upheld the Civil Court's decision, stating that the issue of personal jurisdiction should be resolved at trial. The holding affirmed that the order denying the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was appropriate given the circumstances.

In this case, the court examined whether the insurer had properly canceled a policy covering a vehicle involved in an accident, which was crucial for determining the defendant's liability for no-fault benefits claimed by the plaintiff. The main issue was whether the insurance company provided adequate notice of the cancellation in compliance with relevant legal standards. The court found that the evidence submitted by the insurer did not sufficiently demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313. It also ruled that the insurer failed to establish that the policy cancellation was effective as to the plaintiff’s assignor, who was not the named insured. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order and denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In this case, the court considered relevant facts surrounding an action initiated by a medical supply company seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits after an accident involving a vehicle. The main issue addressed was whether the defendant's insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident, given that the policy had been cancelled prior to the incident. The Civil Court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, asserting there was no coverage for the vehicle involved because the policy was cancelled on October 24, 2022, while the accident occurred on November 4, 2022. However, upon appeal, the Appellate Term reversed this decision, siding with the appellant and denying the summary judgment sought by the insurance company. The court's holding emphasized the need for further examination of the circumstances surrounding the insurance coverage and its cancellation.

In this case, the court considered whether there was valid insurance coverage for a vehicle involved in a no-fault accident that occurred on November 4, 2022, given that the insurance policy had been cancelled two weeks prior, on October 24, 2022. The main issue decided was whether the insurance company was liable for first-party no-fault benefits despite the cancellation of the policy. The court held that the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was improperly granted because the plaintiff's arguments regarding the insurance coverage warranted further examination. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the defendant's summary judgment motion was denied.

In this case, the court considered the facts surrounding an automobile accident on November 4, 2022, involving a vehicle allegedly insured by Foremost Signature Insurance Company. The main issue was whether the insurance policy was in effect at the time of the accident, as the defendant contended that it had been canceled two weeks prior, on October 24, 2022. The court ultimately decided that summary judgment dismissing the complaint was inappropriate because there was insufficient evidence to prove the insurance policy was indeed canceled at the time of the accident. Consequently, the appellate ruling reversed the lower court's order, denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and reinstating the case for further proceedings.

In this case, the court considered the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint based on a lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting that as an Ohio company not authorized to do business in New York, it had not agreed to comply with New York insurance requirements and was improperly served. The Civil Court found that the defendant failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence to support its claims, particularly noting the deficiencies in the defendant's submissions, including an unaccredited affidavit and a lack of certification for the insurance policy documents. The main issues decided included whether the defendant was doing business in New York and whether personal jurisdiction was properly established. The court ultimately held that material factual issues existed regarding the defendant's business activities in New York, allowing the case to proceed to trial on the personal jurisdiction issue. The order denying the motion to dismiss was affirmed, with no merit found in the defendant's remaining arguments.

The court considered the issue of whether the plaintiff, a chiropractic provider, failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) related to a claim for assigned no-fault benefits. The defendant, State Farm, argued that the plaintiff’s non-appearance justified the dismissal of the complaint, citing an affirmation from its attorney as evidence of the failure to appear. Initially, the Civil Court had denied summary judgment for the defendant due to the attorney's affirmation being deemed insufficient because it was executed three years after the alleged no-show. However, upon renewal of its motion, the Appellate Term ruled that the attorney's affirmation was credible and sufficient to demonstrate the plaintiff's failure to appear. Ultimately, the court reversed the Civil Court’s order and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

The court considered the details of a master arbitration award from November 1, 2022, which had been ruled in favor of Integrated Medicine of S.I., P.C., and the subsequent proceedings initiated by American Transit Insurance Company to vacate this award. The primary issues addressed included whether to confirm the arbitration award and the appropriate amount of attorney's fees to be awarded under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4). The court decided to confirm the arbitration award and granted Integrated Medicine an additional attorney's fee of $220. The holding affirmed that the Supreme Court acted within its discretion in awarding the attorney's fee without a hearing due to Integrated Medicine's failure to support its claim with necessary documentation. In conclusion, the court upheld the judgment and the awarded fees, finding the remaining contentions by Integrated Medicine either meritless or academic.

In this case, the court examined a proceeding initiated by American Transit Insurance Company to vacate a master arbitration award that had been issued in favor of YD Medical Services, P.C. The main issues addressed included whether the arbitration award should be confirmed and the amount of an additional attorney's fee YD Medical was entitled to receive under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4). The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award and granted YD Medical an additional attorney's fee of $220. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that the Supreme Court acted within its discretion in determining the attorney's fee without a hearing, particularly since YD Medical had not sufficiently detailed the nature of the services rendered or requested a hearing on the matter. The court further stated that YD Medical's remaining arguments were either meritless or irrelevant.