No-Fault Case Law

The relevant facts the court considered were that the plaintiff, Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C., was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, American Independent Ins. Co. The affidavit of service alleged that the summons and complaint were served by mail, but the plaintiff's papers did not contain an acknowledgment of service. The main issue decided by the court was whether the plaintiff had obtained personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The holding of the case was that the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, as the plaintiff had failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court reversed the order of the Civil Court and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case were that JPC Medical, P.C. was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. as the assignee of the patient, Isaacs. State Farm had filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by the lower court, and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was denied. The main issues considered were whether State Farm had proved that it had paid the limits of the policy in accordance with the law, and whether JPC Medical, P.C. had demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment based on the timely denial of claim form. The holding of the case was that the appellate court modified the lower court's order by denying State Farm's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. It was found that State Farm failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it had made any payments under the policy, and JPC Medical, P.C. had also failed to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment. Therefore, the appellant's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the order was affirmed as modified.

The court considered that in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the affidavit of service alleged that the summons and complaint were served by mail pursuant to CPLR 312-a, but plaintiff's papers did not contain an acknowledgment of service. Defendant American Independent Ins. Co. moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that plaintiff had failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over it, while the other defendants moved to dismiss so much of the complaint as was asserted against them on the same ground. Plaintiff opposed both motions and cross-moved for summary judgment. The main issue decided was whether the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants due to the lack of acknowledgment of service. The holding of the case was that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants and therefore, the motions to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants were granted.

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case were that the plaintiff, Ksenia Pavlova, as the assignee of Pollen, Faith, brought an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, Nationwide Ins. The defendant had moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs), and the plaintiff had also filed a cross motion for summary judgment. The main issue decided by the court was whether the insurer had twice duly demanded an EUO from the assignor, that the assignor had twice failed to appear, and that the insurer had issued a timely denial of the claims. The holding of the court was that the insurer had established proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and had therefore demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, affirming the order of the Civil Court.

The court considered the fact that the defendant in this case had moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint filed by the plaintiff, who was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The holding of the case was that the defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed and that the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs. Consequently, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant's motion. Therefore, the order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment was reversed.

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant, GEICO Insurance, had timely denied the claims after the plaintiff, EA Chiropractic Diagnostics, P.C., had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The court held that GEICO Insurance's motion failed to establish that it had timely denied the claims at issue after the plaintiff failed to appear for the EUOs. The court also ruled that as the defendant did not demonstrate that it was not precluded from raising its proffered defense, the branches of the defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the claims for services rendered to certain individuals were properly denied. Therefore, the appellate term affirmed the lower court's decision.

The main issues in the case were whether the defendant had provided sufficient evidence that the letters scheduling independent medical examinations (IMEs) were properly addressed and timely mailed, and whether the plaintiff had demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment. The court considered the failure of the defendant to demonstrate that the IMEs were properly scheduled and, therefore, failed to show that the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear at the duly scheduled IMEs. On the other hand, the court found that the plaintiff had also failed to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment, as the affidavit submitted in support of its motion failed to establish that the claim at issue had not been timely denied. The holding of the court was that the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied, but the order was affirmed with modification.

The court considered the issue of whether the plaintiff, Warton Supplies, Inc. as Assignee of Judith Darius, failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs), which was the basis for the defendant, GEICO General Ins. Co.'s, motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim forms had been timely mailed and that plaintiff had failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs. As a result, the defendant demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant's motion, and therefore the court reversed the order of the Civil Court and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The main issue in Parisien v. Travelers Insurance Co. was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, as defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The court considered the fact that the defendant had established that EUO letters had been timely mailed, the plaintiff had failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs, and that the claims had been timely denied by the defendant on those grounds. As a result, the court held that the defendant was entitled to summary judgement dismissing the complaint, and vacated the order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgement. The matter was remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgement in favor of the defendant dismissing the complaint.

The court considered the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided in this case was that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The holding of the court was that defendant had proven that plaintiff failed to appear at the EUOs through affidavits by its attorneys who were scheduled to conduct the EUOs, as well as certified transcripts of the EUOs. Plaintiff's contention that defendant failed to timely deny the claims at issue was not considered as it was raised for the first time at the oral argument of the appeal. Therefore, the court affirmed the order.