No-Fault Case Law

The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court denying a motion from the defendant to stay the action pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board of the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's assignor had been injured during the course of his employment and therefore, workers' compensation benefits might be available. The main issue decided was whether the Workers' Compensation Board should first determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law before the courts express views on the matter. The holding of the case was that the matter would be held in abeyance pending a prompt application to the Workers' Compensation Board for a determination of the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law. If the plaintiff fails to file proof of such application within 90 days, the court would grant the defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The court considered whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority and acted irrationally in issuing a decision to deny the petitioner's claim for underinsured motorist benefits under an insurance policy held by GEICO. The main issue decided was whether the arbitrator's determination was rational, supported by evidence, and not arbitrary and capricious. The court held that the arbitrator’s determination was rational and supported by evidence, and that the alleged error made was an error of law, not warranting vacatur of the arbitration award. The decision to deny the petitioner's claim for SUM benefits was affirmed and the remaining contentions were found to be without merit.

The court considered the motion for summary judgment by the plaintiff to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, as well as the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and if the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted. The holding of the case was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed.

The main issue in this case was whether a provider could recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits when the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. The court considered the fact that the plaintiff had moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The holding of the case was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed with a cost of $25. The court's decision was based on the fact that the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, which was grounds for dismissal of the complaint.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff in this case, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, moved for summary judgment to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, while the defendant, GEICO Ins. Co., cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. The main issue decided in this case was whether the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath justified the dismissal of the complaint. The holding of the court was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case were that the plaintiff, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, GEICO Ins. Co. The plaintiff had moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The main issue decided by the court was whether the plaintiff's failure to appear for the scheduled examinations under oath justified the denial of their motion for summary judgment and the granting of the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. The holding of the court was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed, with costs.

The main issue decided in this case was whether a provider could recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits when they failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The court considered the fact that the plaintiff had failed to appear for examinations as scheduled, and the defendant argued that this failure justified the dismissal of the complaint. The court ultimately held that the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed, with costs. The court's decision was based on similar reasoning to a related case, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. etc., as Assignee of Saint-Louis, Lydia v GEICO Ins. Co., which was decided at the same time.

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case were that the provider, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from GEICO Ins. Co. The main issue decided by the court was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, which would result in the dismissal of the complaint. The holding of the case was that the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed by the court. Therefore, the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath led to the dismissal of the complaint.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, had moved for summary judgment to recover first-party no-fault benefits, while the defendant, GEICO Ins. Co., cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to appear for examinations under oath. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover no-fault benefits despite their failure to attend scheduled examinations under oath. The holding of the court was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed, with costs. This means that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover no-fault benefits due to their failure to comply with the scheduled examinations under oath.

The relevant facts the court considered in this case were that the plaintiff, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, sought to recover first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, GEICO Insurance Company. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The main issue decided by the court was whether the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath warranted the dismissal of the complaint and denial of their motion for summary judgment. The holding of the court was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed. This decision was based on the plaintiff's failure to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, and it was consistent with a similar case, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. etc., as Assignee of Saint-Louis, Lydia v GEICO Ins. Co., which was decided in conjunction with this case.