No-Fault Case Law

The court considered the circumstances under which an action to recover first-party no-fault benefits was commenced. The main issue decided was whether the action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits had been properly commenced within the statute of limitations period. The court held that the action was not commenced within the period of the statute of limitations because service of process had not been properly effected as required by CPLR 312-a, and, therefore, the action was time-barred. The court determined that the plaintiff did not acquire personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and thus the action was not properly commenced, the time within which the action must have been commenced to recover no-fault benefits accrued before the action was filed, and thus, it was dismissed.

The case involved a dispute over an arbitration between Jeffrey Gee et al. and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The Supreme Court dismissed a petition to vacate arbitration awards, and the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal but modified it to confirm the awards. The petitioners sustained injuries in an automobile accident in 1996 and submitted their claims to State Farm for loss of earnings and medical expenses. When the claims were denied, they filed a civil action within six years of the accident and agreed to submit the matter to arbitration to resolve the dispute with State Farm. The issue in question was whether the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Appellate Division ultimately decided that the petitioners were not entitled to vacate the awards, affirming the determination of the arbitrator, and the arbitration awards were thus confirmed.

The court considered the fact that plaintiff Jamaica Medical Supply Inc. submitted a bill for rental of medical supply equipment beyond the 45-day time limit required by No-Fault Regulations. Defendant Geico denied the claim based on the late submission and requested a reasonable justification for the failure to give timely notice. Plaintiff argued that the rental equipment was not possible to bill within 45 days of disbursement due to uncertainty regarding the number of days the machines would be rented. The main issue decided was whether the bill submitted on its face constituted a reasonable justification for the untimely submission of the claim, or if plaintiff had an independent obligation to provide a written reasonable justification for its late bill upon receiving the denial from defendant Geico. The holding of the case was that plaintiff failed to respond to defendant's request for a reasonable excuse during the claims phase, therefore the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

The main issues in this case were whether V.S. Medical Services, P.C. was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered, and whether they had provided enough evidence to prove their entitlement. The court considered that during the nonjury trial, V.S. Medical Services, P.C. called no witnesses and offered no claim forms into evidence. Instead, they relied on a 2005 order of the Civil Court and deposition testimony from an employee of Travelers Insurance Co. The Appellate Term, Second Department held that V.S. Medical Services, P.C. failed to proffer any evidence to identify the claim forms upon which they sought to recover, and that they did not establish that the claim forms being sued upon remained unpaid. As a result, they failed to make out a prima facie case demonstrating their entitlement to recover. The judgment of the Civil Court was affirmed, dismissing V.S. Medical Services, P.C.'s complaint.

The court considered the facts of the case, including a routine claim for no-fault benefits sought by Nexray Medical Imaging PC against Allstate Insurance Company. Allstate denied the claim, alleging that Nexray was engaged in illegal and unlawful corporate practices, and demanded extensive documentation and bank records through a subpoena served on Citibank. The main issue was whether Allstate's subpoena, seeking access to a large number of financial records and documents from Nexray's bank, was justified based on their defenses to the claim. The court held that while the subpoena was relevant and provided notice of the circumstances for which disclosure was sought, it raised policy concerns regarding the balancing of interests, and defendant's use of the subpoena as a pre-trial disclosure device. The court granted a protective order in favor of Nexray, limiting the subpoena to the signature cards for the bank account, and withholding judgment on the defendant's ability to obtain further bank records until after production of the signature cards. If further discovery is needed, it must be directed to Nexray and not to Citibank.

The relevant facts in this case involved Liberty Mutual Insurance Company seeking de novo adjudication of defendant Bayside Pain & Rehabilitation Medicine's assigned first-party no-fault benefits claim, which had resulted in an arbitration award in favor of the provider. The complaint sought a determination that defendant was not entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits under plaintiff insurer's policy. The main issue decided was whether the District Court of Nassau County had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this particular type of declaratory judgment action. The holding of the case was that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and thus its order was considered a nullity, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal and vacating of the District Court's order from July 12, 2011.

The court considered an appeal from an order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The case involved a provider seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits upon 15 claims, and the appeal was based on disputed claims of lack of medical necessity and timely requests for verification. The main issue decided was whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the lack of medical necessity for the claims and untimely responses to verification requests. The holding of the court was that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claims seeking to recover $2,516.58, $967.52, and $832.92, as there was a lack of medical necessity and no timely responses to verification requests for those claims. Additionally, the court found that the defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the fee charged exceeded the amount set forth in the workers' compensation fee schedule.

The court considered the issue of whether the defendant, Geico Ins. Co., was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint of Right Aid Diagnostic Medicine, P.C. as Assignee of Delmy-Carolina Castro to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant had timely denied the claims on the basis of a lack of medical necessity and submitted two affirmed peer review reports in support of this determination. The court held that as the defendant's showing that the services were not medically necessary was not rebutted by the plaintiff, the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Therefore, the court found in favor of the defendant and reversed the lower court's decision, granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The court was deciding whether the case was properly dismissed based on the statute of limitations. The action was commenced by service of a summons in 2003. However, the time in which to sue ended if a claim asserted in the complaint is not interposed after the summons is served upon the defendant. The dismissal was not warranted because the Civil Court conditionally permitted the filing of the summons with the proof of service nunc pro tunc. Consequently, the six-year statute of limitations had not expired prior to the commencement of the action in April 2003. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.

The relevant facts in this case included the defendant insurer's failure to pay first-party no-fault benefits and the plaintiff's claim for recovery of those benefits. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's requests for verification through an examination under oath (EUO) were effective to toll its time to pay or deny the claims at issue. The court held that the action was not ripe for summary disposition because the defendant failed to establish that its EUO requests were effective. The court also found that triable issues were raised as to whether the defendant properly followed up on its request for verification. Therefore, the court affirmed the order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment.