No-Fault Case Law
Essential Health Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51078(U))
August 17, 2017
The case involved a dispute between Essential Health Chiropractic, P.C. and GEICO Insurance Company regarding the denial of claims to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Essential Health Chiropractic, P.C. sought to vacate a master arbitrator's award that upheld the denial of their claims, while GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator's award. The District Court denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award and granted the cross petition to confirm the award. Upon review, the court found that the master arbitrator's determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to settled law. Consequently, the District Court's decision to deny the petition and confirm the award was affirmed. The court also noted that a special proceeding should terminate in a judgment, not an order.
Essential Health Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51077(U))
August 17, 2017
The court considered a petition to vacate a master arbitrator's award which upheld the denial of petitioner's claims to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator's award. The District Court denied the petition and granted the cross petition. The main issue decided was whether the determination of the master arbitrator had a rational basis and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to settled law. The holding was that the determination of the master arbitrator had a rational basis and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to settled law, so the District Court properly denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award and granted the cross petition to confirm the award.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51034(U))
August 11, 2017
The court considered the case of Active Care Medical Supply Corp., as assignee of Guzman, Steven, appealing an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the action by the plaintiff to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits was premature due to the plaintiff's failure to provide requested verification. The holding of the case was that the order of the Civil Court was reversed and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied, citing similar reasoning to another case decided herewith. This decision was reached by the Appellate Term, Second Department.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51033(U))
August 11, 2017
The relevant facts the court considered were that Active Care Medical Supply Corp. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, but the defendant, Travelers Insurance Company, had filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the action was premature due to lack of requested verification. The main issue decided was whether the action by the provider was premature and if the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. The holding of the case was that the court reversed the lower court's order, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and ruled in favor of Active Care Medical Supply Corp., allowing them to proceed with their action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51032(U))
August 11, 2017
The court considered the case of Active Care Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Thompson Johola, against Travelers Insurance Company. The main issue decided in this case was whether the provider had failed to provide requested verification for a claim for first-party no-fault benefits. The court held that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied. The court based its decision on the reasoning in another case, Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of Nathalia Brown v American Tr. Ins. Co., which was decided at the same time. The decision was made by Justices Pesce, Aliotta, and Solomon, and the order was reversed with a cost of $30.
Renelique v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51031(U))
August 11, 2017
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the action was premature because the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. The holding of the court was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was reversed, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied. The court cited a similar case in its decision, stating that for the reasons stated in that case, the order was reversed. The justices concurred with the decision to reverse the order and deny the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Renelique v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51027(U))
August 11, 2017
The relevant facts of the case involved Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as the assignee of Williams, Rennie, appealing from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided in this case was whether the action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits was premature because the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. The holding of the case was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was reversed, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied. The court found that for the reasons stated in Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as the Assignee of Nathalia Brown v American Tr. Ins. Co., the complaint should not be dismissed.
Chapa Prods. Corp. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51026(U))
August 11, 2017
The court considered the appeal from an order of the Civil Court which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the action was premature because the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. The court reversed the order and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, citing a related case for the reasons stated in that decision. The holding of the case was that the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied, and the order was reversed.
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51025(U))
August 11, 2017
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint brought by TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Mussenden, Sheldon. The order was granted on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. The main issue decided was whether the action was premature due to the plaintiff's failure to provide requested verification. The holding of the case was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied.
Renelique v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51022(U))
August 11, 2017
The court considered an order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a case where a provider was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the action was premature due to the plaintiff's failure to provide requested verification. The court held that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the action was premature, as the plaintiff's affidavit was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to and received by the defendant. Therefore, the court reversed the order and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.