No-Fault Case Law
East Gun Hill Med., P.C. v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am. (2012 NY Slip Op 50783(U))
April 27, 2012
The main issues in this case were whether the defendant had a reasonable excuse for their default and whether they had a meritorious defense to the action. The court considered the fact that the defendant's moving papers failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the default. As a result, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, as the defendant did not demonstrate a valid reason for their default and failed to establish a meritorious defense to the action. Therefore, the appeal from the order entered December 20, 2010 was deemed to be from the judgment, and the court affirmed the judgment without costs.
East Gun Hill Med., P.C. v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am. (2012 NY Slip Op 50782(U))
April 27, 2012
The court considered an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a prior order granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion for summary judgment in a case to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the defendant had demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the action in seeking to vacate the prior order entered on default. The court held that the defendant's moving papers failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the default and did not establish a meritorious defense, and therefore affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of $3,780.82.
Top Choice Med., P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50778(U))
April 27, 2012
The court considered whether the plaintiff, Top Choice Medical, P.C., had established its entitlement to summary judgment in a case to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the defendant, Geico General Insurance Company, had failed to pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period, or had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague, or without merit as a matter of law. The holding of the court was that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the defendant's denial of claim forms were either untimely or without merit as a matter of law, and therefore, the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.
All Boro Psychological Services, P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50777(U))
April 27, 2012
The main issue decided in this case was whether a provider, All Boro Psychological Services, P.C., was obligated to respond to certain discovery demands made by the defendant, Auto One Ins. Co., as a condition for their claim to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The court held that the provider was obligated to provide the requested information, except for matters which were privileged or palpably improper. The defendant had set forth specific reasons for its belief that the provider may be ineligible to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and by obtaining the requested discovery, the defendant would be able to ascertain whether the provider was indeed ineligible. The court affirmed the order denying the provider's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint in part, compelling the provider to respond to the defendant's discovery demands.
Jamhil Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50775(U))
April 27, 2012
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, in which plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, allowing the plaintiff, Jamhil Medical, P.C. to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Allstate Ins. Co. Defendant, Allstate Ins. Co., appealed the decision. The main issue decided was whether plaintiff had established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. The court held that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that claim forms annexed to its motion papers were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and therefore, plaintiff failed to make out its prima facie case. The judgment was reversed, the order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was vacated, and plaintiff's motion was denied.
Infinity Health Prods. Ltd. v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50774(U))
April 27, 2012
The court considered the fact that the defendant had timely mailed requests for verification and follow-up requests for first-party no-fault benefits, and that the plaintiff had failed to respond to those requests. The main issue decided was whether the 30-day period within which the defendant was required to pay or deny the plaintiff's claims had commenced to run, and whether the plaintiff's action was premature. The holding of the court was that the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted, as the plaintiff's action was indeed premature. As a result, the judgment was reversed, the order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was vacated, and the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was granted.
Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50772(U))
April 27, 2012
The main issue in this case was whether the provider, Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc., was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Co. Plaintiff's assignor failed to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs), which led to the dismissal of plaintiff's claims in the sums of $1,013.25, $549.18 and $844.13. The main argument on appeal was that the insurance policy did not contain a provision entitling the defendant to EUOs. However, the court found that this argument lacked merit based on previous legal precedents. The court also determined that plaintiff's remaining contention was not properly before the court since it was raised for the first time on appeal. As a result, the order granting the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims was affirmed.
Ortho-Med Surgical Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 22119)
April 27, 2012
The main issues in the case dealt with medical expenses in a personal injury lawsuit. In this case, a provider sued an insurance company to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The insurance company agreed to provide responses to the provider's interrogatories within 60 days but did not fulfill this agreement. The court decided that the insurance company was precluded from offering evidence at trial due to their failure to comply with the stipulation. However, the court also found that the provider's motion for summary judgment was denied because it failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to it. Additionally, the insurance company was not allowed to use evidence in support of their cross motion for summary judgment that they were barred from introducing at trial. Therefore, the provider's motion for preclusion was granted, but their motion for summary judgment was denied, and the insurance company's cross-motion was also denied.
Neomy Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50769(U))
April 25, 2012
The main issues in this case involved a dispute over first-party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered. The court considered whether the defendant's timely denial of the claim based on lack of medical necessity was valid, and if so, whether the plaintiff had sufficiently rebutted this denial. The court held that the defendant's timely denial, supported by a peer review report and affidavit, demonstrated a lack of medical necessity, establishing their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff's supervising physician's affidavit failed to justify with specificity the additional studies and did not rebut the conclusions set forth in the peer review report. Therefore, the court reversed the order, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50764(U))
April 25, 2012
The relevant facts of the case involved a provider seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The provider moved for summary judgment, but the insurance company opposed the motion, arguing that it had timely denied the claims based on the assignor's eligibility for workers' compensation benefits. The main issue decided was whether the provider had complied with the court's order to make a proper application to the Workers' Compensation Board, pursuant to a previous court order. The holding of the case was that the provider had failed to demonstrate that a proper application for workers' compensation benefits had been made within the time provisions set forth in the court's order, and thus, the denial of summary judgment and the granting of the insurance company's cross motion for summary judgment were affirmed.