No-Fault Case Law

Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50763(U))

The insurer's summary judgment dismissing the provider's complaint for EUO nonappearance was affirmed. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the Civil Court's order for the reasons stated in the companion appeal decided the same day, No. 2017-485 K C.
Read More: Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50763(U))

Serge Chiropractic Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50762(U))

The insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's complaint was denied on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the Civil Court's order for the reasons stated in Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., the companion appeal decided the same day, No. 2016-2907 K C.
Read More: Serge Chiropractic Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50762(U))

Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50761(U))

The insurer's motion for summary judgment based on the provider's failure to appear for EUOs was granted on appeal. The Civil Court, Kings County, had left for trial a discrepancy between the person named in the EUO letters and the person affirming nonappearance. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, for the reasons stated in companion appeal No. 2017-575 K C, decided the same day.
Read More: Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50761(U))

Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50760(U))

A different contact in an EUO letter does not undermine an otherwise sufficient affirmation of nonappearance by an attorney at the same firm. The insurer sought summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims for failure to appear for EUOs. The Civil Court, Kings County, found, in effect under CPLR 3212 (g) that the insurer established timely and proper mailing of the scheduling letters and denials and the provider's nonappearance, but left the contact discrepancy for trial. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and granted the insurer's motion because that discrepancy did not raise a triable issue.
Read More: Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50760(U))

Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50759(U))

An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish entitlement to summary judgment based on nonappearance. The provider appealed an order dismissing its assigned no-fault claims. The insurer's proof raised a presumption that the EUO scheduling letters and denial had been timely mailed and established the provider's failure to appear. Under Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, the insurer needed to show two duly demanded EUOs, two failures to appear, and a timely denial. The provider's challenge to the absence of objective reasons supplied no basis to disturb the order. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed summary judgment for the insurer.
Read More: Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50759(U))

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50758(U))

The insurer's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims was granted and affirmed on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, also affirmed the denial of the provider's summary judgment motion, relying on the reasons stated in companion appeal No. 2016-2883 K C, decided the same day.
Read More: Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50758(U))

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50757(U))

The insurer's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims was granted and affirmed on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, also affirmed the denial of the provider's summary judgment motion, relying on the reasons stated in companion appeal No. 2016-2883 K C, decided the same day.
Read More: Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50757(U))

Parisien v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50755(U))

The insurer's summary judgment cross motion on the first, second, fourth, and fifth causes of action was denied on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the order and left the provider's summary judgment motion on those claims denied. It relied on companion appeal Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., No. 2016-2907 K C, decided the same day.
Read More: Parisien v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50755(U))

Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50753(U))

The insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims was granted and affirmed on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, relied on the reasons stated in companion appeal No. 2016-2886 K C, decided the same day.
Read More: Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50753(U))

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50751(U))

The insurer's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims was granted and affirmed on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, also affirmed the denial of the provider's summary judgment motion, relying on the reasons stated in companion appeal No. 2016-2883 K C, decided the same day.
Read More: Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50751(U))