No-Fault Case Law
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51203(U))
December 10, 2021
The case involves TAM Medical Supply Corp. seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant, American Independent Ins. Co. (AIIC), sought to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that TAM had failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over it. The Civil Court denied AIIC's motion, and TAM cross-moved for an order denying AIIC's motion for summary judgment. The Court held that AIIC did business in the State of New York and denied the motion to dismiss the complaint. Defendant Omni Indemnity Company appealed the decision, but the appeal was dismissed as it was not aggrieved by the denial of the motion to dismiss the complaint or the denial of TAM's cross motion. Therefore, the holding of the case was that the appeal was dismissed.
Gc Chiropractic, P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51202(U))
December 10, 2021
The court considered the denial of a motion by defendant American Independent Ins. Co., Inc. (AIIC) to dismiss a complaint brought by GC Chiropractic, P.C. seeking first-party no-fault benefits. AIIC argued that the plaintiff had failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over it. The Civil Court denied AIIC's motion and a cross motion by the plaintiff. Defendant Omni Indemnity Company appealed the order, but the court found that they were not aggrieved by the denial of AIIC's motion or the holding that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether AIIC did business in the State of New York. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, and the decision date was December 10, 2021.
Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51201(U))
December 10, 2021
In the case of Longevity Medical Supply, Inc. v American Independent Ins. Co., the main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendants due to lack of an acknowledgment of service. The relevant facts considered were that the affidavit of service alleged that the summons and complaint were served by mail pursuant to CPLR 312-a, but the plaintiff's papers did not contain an acknowledgment of service. The holding of the court was that the branch of the motion seeking to dismiss so much of the complaint as was asserted against defendant Omni Indemnity Company was granted, reversing the order of the Civil Court. This means that the defendant was successful in their motion to dismiss the complaint against them.
Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 21340)
December 10, 2021
In this case, Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC, sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from 21st Century Insurance Company. The main issue before the court was whether the insurance company's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint was valid due to the plaintiff's assignor's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The court considered three claims for $1,314, $620.07, and $620.07, one of which was denied on November 26, 2014, and the two others on February 13, 2015. The court found that the insurance company was not precluded from raising a defense based on the plaintiff's assignor's failure to appear for the EUOs, and the branch of the motion seeking summary judgment for the February 13, 2015 claims was valid. However, the court determined that the insurance company failed to timely deny the November 26, 2014 claim, leading to the denial of that part of the motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the holding of the court was to modify the order and deny the part of the summary judgment motion related to the November 26, 2014 claim.
Vladenn Med. Supply Corp. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 21338)
December 10, 2021
The court considered the facts of a provider seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from an insurance company. The insurance company moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it was not licensed to do business in New York and therefore, did not have personal jurisdiction over it. The provider argued that the insurance company had transacted business in New York and had established an ongoing relationship with defense counsel in New York. The main issue was whether personal jurisdiction had been obtained over the insurance company. The court held that the insurance company made a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction had not been obtained over it, and that the provider's arguments were insufficient to demonstrate that personal jurisdiction existed. The court also considered imposing sanctions against the provider’s counsel for filing frivolous arguments.
JJ & R Chiropractic, PC v Integon Natl. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51149(U))
December 6, 2021
The relevant facts considered by the court in this case were that the plaintiff sued the defendant insurance company to recover unpaid first party No-Fault benefits for medical services provided to the plaintiff's assignor, Desocorro. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that the medical services provided were not medically necessary and that the amount billed had exceeded the applicable Workers Compensation fee schedules. The main issue decided by the court was whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment was timely, as the notice of trial was filed on August 5, 2020, and the deadline for moving for summary judgment was December 3, 2020. The holding of the court was that the defendant's motion was untimely, as it was served on January 21, 2021, and the defendant failed to establish good cause for the delay in filing the motion, resulting in the denial of the motion for summary judgment.
RX for You v Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am. (2021 NY Slip Op 51171(U))
December 3, 2021
The relevant facts of the case involved a provider seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, with the defendant arguing that the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear at scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The main issue decided was whether there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the EUOs were scheduled at a place reasonably convenient to the plaintiff, and whether there was a mutual agreement to reschedule the EUO. The holding of the case was that the court found a triable issue of fact regarding the convenience of the scheduled EUOs and the rescheduling agreement, and therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint was denied. The court also found that the plaintiff's request for a finding that the prima facie case had been established and an order sanctioning the defendant lacked merit.
Forest Hills Healthcare Physician, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51170(U))
December 3, 2021
The relevant facts of the case included a provider seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and the defendant moving for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff's assignor was not a passenger in the defendant's insured's car when the accident occurred. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's moving papers established, prima facie, that the plaintiff's assignor was not a passenger in the defendant's insured's vehicle when the accident occurred. The holding of the case was that the defendant's moving papers did not establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff's assignor was not a passenger in the defendant's insured's vehicle, and therefore the denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint was required. As a result, the order denying the defendant's motion was affirmed.
New York Med. & Diagnostic Ctr. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51138(U))
December 2, 2021
The court considered the fact that the plaintiff sued the defendant insurance company to recover unpaid first party No-Fault benefits for medical services provided to the plaintiff's assignor, Browne. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff submitted some claims untimely and other claims exceeded the fee amount prescribed by applicable fee schedules. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff's untimely submission of claims and failure to comply with fee schedules excused the defendant from liability for the payment of the claims. The holding of the case was that the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted as to the early July 2019 bills, but denied for the late July 2019 bill. The plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment in its claims was ultimately denied.
Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v Nationwide Ins. (2021 NY Slip Op 51167(U))
November 26, 2021
The main issue in this case was whether Veraso Medical Supply Corp. was eligible to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The court considered whether the company had complied with the applicable New York State or local licensing requirements necessary to perform such services in New York. The court found that Veraso Medical Supply Corp. had failed to comply with the local licensing requirements and therefore was not eligible for reimbursement under 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12). As a result, the judgment of the Civil Court dismissing the complaint was affirmed. The holding of the court was that Veraso Medical Supply Corp. was not eligible to recover the sought-after first-party no-fault benefits due to their failure to meet licensing requirements.