No-Fault Case Law
Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51881(U))
December 14, 2015
The court considered the case of Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., where plaintiff's assignor was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding in a vehicle insured by a New Jersey automobile insurance policy issued by the defendant. Plaintiff sought to recover first-party no-fault benefits for the services it had rendered to its assignor, alleging that its claims were unpaid. Defendant argued that New Jersey law and the insurance policy required arbitration and that the case was not properly before the court as it had no jurisdiction. The main issue decided was whether the matter should be submitted to arbitration under New Jersey law and the insurance policy, and whether the court had jurisdiction. The holding was that the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied, and the court affirmed the order with modifications.
Prepetit Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51879(U))
December 14, 2015
The court considered an appeal from an order in a case where Prepetit Medical, P.C. sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Allstate Insurance Company. The main issue was whether the lower court properly granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking to compel the plaintiff to appear for a deposition. The court's holding was that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs. This decision was based on the reasoning and decision in a previous case involving similar circumstances, Farshad D. Hannanian, M.D., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., and was supported by the concurring judges.
Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 25425)
December 14, 2015
The case involved Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Leila Milfort, who sought to recover no-fault benefits for services it provided. The car accident occurred in New Jersey, and the vehicle involved was insured by a New Jersey automobile insurance policy issued by the defendant, Geico Ins. Co. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, while Geico filed a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the dispute had to be resolved by arbitration under New Jersey law which was denied. The court held that since the insurance policy in question contains a provision to interpret pursuant to the laws of the state of New Jersey, New Jersey law applies. The court also held that the existence of an option to arbitrate is not a ground for dismissal of a court action, but the defendant’s option, if exercised by way of a motion to compel arbitration, is a ground to stay the court action. Since the defendant has not moved to compel arbitration, defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied. The defendant's cross motion was denied and the Civil Court's order was affirmed, without costs.
Matter of Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v New Way Massage Therapy P.C. (2015 NY Slip Op 09184)
December 10, 2015
The court took into consideration whether a fee-sharing arrangement between a medical service provider and a management company was considered unprofessional conduct. The issue at hand was determining if the fee-sharing arrangement constituted a valid defense to a no-fault action. The court decided that while the fee-sharing arrangement may have constituted unprofessional conduct, it did not serve as a defense to a no-fault action. The court denied the petition to vacate the arbitrator's award and ultimately confirmed the said award, thereby affirming the decision of the Supreme Court.
Parkview Med. Advanced, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51873(U))
December 9, 2015
The court considered an action by a medical provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's requests and follow-up requests for additional verification of the claims were timely mailed, and whether the plaintiff had provided the requested verification. The holding of the court was that the defendant had timely mailed its requests and follow-up requests for additional verification, and the plaintiff did not oppose the defendant's cross motion. Consequently, the 30-day period within which the defendant was required to pay or deny the claims did not begin to run, and the first through seventh and the ninth causes of action in the complaint were considered premature. The judgment of the Civil Court granting parts of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was reversed, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was vacated. The matter was remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of the defendant dismissing the first through seventh and the ninth causes of action and in favor of the plaintiff on the eighth cause of action.
Best Touch PT, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51789(U))
December 2, 2015
The main issue in this case was whether the defendant, American Transit Ins. Co. (ATIC), was obligated to pay first-party no-fault benefits for services provided by the plaintiff, Best Touch PT, P.C., to their assignor, Emely Cordero, after she failed to appear at independent medical examinations. The court considered the fact that ATIC had obtained a declaratory judgment against Cordero and various providers, including the plaintiff, stating that they were not obligated to pay any claims for no-fault benefits submitted by the providers who treated Cordero. The court held that this action was barred under the doctrine of res judicata, based on the Supreme Court's order, and reversing the Civil Court's decision to grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied it, and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Therefore, the holding of the case was that ATIC was not obligated to pay the first-party no-fault benefits to the plaintiff.
Performance Plus Med., P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51777(U))
December 2, 2015
The court considered an appeal from an order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue was whether the appeal from the order entered upon the default of the appealing party was allowed. The court held that as no appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the appealing party, the appeal was dismissed. The decision was made by a unanimous decision of the judges.
Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51776(U))
December 2, 2015
The case involved an action by a medical provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The provider moved for summary judgment, and the insurance company cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Civil Court denied the provider's motion and granted the insurance company's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. The main issues decided were whether the insurance company had timely mailed verification requests, and whether the medical provider's assignor had failed to comply with conditions precedent to coverage, such as appearing for independent medical examinations. The holding of the case was that the insurance company was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the remaining causes of action, except for the third cause of action, as there was a triable issue of fact as to whether it was premature. Therefore, the order was modified to deny the insurance company's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action.
GLM Med., P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 25405)
December 2, 2015
The main issue in this case was whether or not to grant the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial calendar after it had been mistakenly marked as "settled." The court considered the fact that the case had been marked as "settled" on the New York State Unified Court System eCourts public website, but also noted that this notation did not constitute sufficient memorialization of the terms of the alleged settlement to satisfy the open-court requirement of CPLR 2104. As a result, the court held that, since there was no indication that an enforceable settlement was reached, the plaintiff's motion to restore the action should have been granted. The holding of the case was that the order was reversed, and the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial calendar was granted.
Stracar Med. Servs. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51761(U))
December 1, 2015
The court considered the circumstances of an automobile accident and the subsequent assignment of first-party no-fault benefits to the plaintiff. The main issue decided was whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on an order from a Virginia court voiding the insurance policy ab initio. The holding of the case was that the plaintiff was not bound by the Virginia court's order because it was not a party to, nor in privity with a party to, the Virginia action. Therefore, the defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied.