No-Fault Case Law
Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Evans (2019 NY Slip Op 07716)
October 29, 2019
The court considered the conflicting affidavits from the claims adjuster and the application for no-fault benefits to determine if the EUO letters were timely mailed. They also considered the issue of why the claimant, Akeem Evans, left the EUO after his counsel announced he would no longer represent him. The main issue decided was whether Global Liberty Insurance Co. owed no-fault coverage to health care provider SML Acupuncture, P.C. The court ultimately held that Global's motion for summary judgment was denied because they failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the EUO letters were timely mailed and because issues of fact arose as to why Evans left the EUO. The court also found that SML's contention that Global failed to provide proper notice for the delay of the claim was unpreserved, and their argument for attorneys' fees was unavailing.
ZZ Acupuncture, P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51761(U))
October 25, 2019
The relevant facts considered by the court were that ZZ Acupuncture, P.C. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from American Independent Ins. Co. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint should be granted pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8). The holding of the case was that, for the reasons stated in another case (Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Vernizier, Jean Willy v American Ind. Ins. Co.), the order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was reversed and the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was ultimately granted.
SAS Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51759(U))
October 25, 2019
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court which denied the defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for services rendered to assignors Paola Dossa and Omar Morrison. The main issue decided was whether the action was premature because the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification of the services rendered. The court held that the defendant had demonstrated that it had timely mailed initial and follow-up requests for verification and had not received the requested verification, thus showing that the complaint seeking to recover for services rendered to Paola Dossa and Omar Morrison was premature. As the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant's motion, the branches of the defendant's motion seeking summary judgment were granted.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51758(U))
October 25, 2019
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which had granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint of Active Care Medical Supply Corp. as the assignee of Phanord, Jonas, seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits.
The main issue decided was whether to affirm the lower court's order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8).
The holding of the case was that the order of the Civil Court was affirmed, with $25 costs. This decision was based on the reasons stated in a related case, Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Vernizier, Jean Willy v. American Ind. Ins. Co., which was decided herewith. P.J., ALIOTTA, and SIEGAL, JJ., all concurred with this decision.
Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51756(U))
October 25, 2019
The court considered a motion to dismiss the complaint by the defendant in a case where a provider was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8). The holding of the court was that the order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was affirmed. This decision was based on the reasoning stated in a similar case, Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Vernizier, Jean Willy v American Ind. Ins. Co., which was decided concurrently. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to dismiss the complaint, affirming the order in favor of the defendant.
Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51755(U))
October 25, 2019
The relevant facts considered by the court were that Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as assignee of Theodore, Murat, was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from American Independent Insurance Company. The main issue decided was whether the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8). The holding of the court was that the order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was affirmed. This decision was based on the reasons stated in a similar case, Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Vernizier, Jean Willy v American Ind. Ins. Co. The order was affirmed by the Appellate Term, Second Department.
Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51754(U))
October 25, 2019
The case involved an appeal from a provider seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from an insurance company. The provider, Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., appealed from an order of the Civil Court that granted the insurance company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The main issue in the case was whether the provider's complaint should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8). The court considered the reasons stated in a similar case and affirmed the order granting the insurance company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The holding of the case was that the order granting the insurance company's motion to dismiss the complaint was affirmed.
Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51753(U))
October 25, 2019
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, granting defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8). The holding of the case was that, for the reasons stated in a similar case of Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Vernizier, Jean Willy v American Ind. Ins. Co., the order to dismiss the complaint was affirmed by the court. The decision was made by the Appellate Term, Second Department, with a unanimous concurrence by the judges.
Ocean View Med. Care, P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51752(U))
October 25, 2019
The court considered an appeal from a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, with the defendant appealing from an order of the Civil Court denying their motion to dismiss the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the provider would be entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant. The holding of the case was that the order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was reversed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. Therefore, the provider was not entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant.
Parisien v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51751(U))
October 25, 2019
The relevant facts considered in this case were that Jules Francois Parisien, M.D. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from American Independent Ins. Co. The main issue was whether the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8). The court held that the order denying defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was reversed, and defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. The court referenced a similar case, Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Vernizier, Jean Willy v American Ind. Ins. Co., in reaching its decision.