No-Fault Case Law
Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51409(U))
August 23, 2019
The relevant facts considered in this case are that Right Aid Medical Supply Corp. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was premature. The main issue decided was whether plaintiff had provided the requested verification to defendant. The holding of the court was that the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial on the issue of whether the requested verification remains outstanding. The court held that the burden was on plaintiff to provide the requested verification, and since no testimony was presented, the Civil Court found for the defendant.
McCulloch v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 06254)
August 22, 2019
The relevant facts in this case involved a plaintiff who sought uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits based on injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, but the jury found that the accident was not a substantial factor in causing an injury to the plaintiff. The main issues dealt with the court's decision to preclude the plaintiff from calling her insurer's representatives as witnesses and to enter evidence of insurance at trial, as well as whether the court properly rejected the plaintiff's request to charge the jury regarding the aggravation of a preexisting injury. The holding of the court was that the judgment dismissing the complaint and awarding the defendant costs and disbursements was affirmed without costs.
Medical Care of W. N.Y. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 06243)
August 22, 2019
The court considered the plaintiff's allegations that the defendant, an insurance company, violated no-fault regulations by requesting verifications and examinations under oath and delaying payment of claims for treatment rendered by the plaintiff. The main issues decided were whether the amended complaint sufficiently alleged causes of action for breach of contract, negligent hiring, supervision, or retention, and prima facie tort. The holding of the court was that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action for breach of contract, negligent hiring, supervision, or retention, and prima facie tort, and thus the order of the Supreme Court denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was reversed and the amended complaint was dismissed. The court found that the allegations in the amended complaint were vague and conclusory and failed to sufficiently allege facts to support the causes of action.
American Chiropractic Care, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51359(U))
August 16, 2019
The relevant facts of the case are that American Chiropractic Care, P.C. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Hereford Insurance Company. Hereford Insurance Company had moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis that the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs). However, the court found that the IME scheduling letter was not sent in a timely manner, and therefore, Hereford Insurance Company was unable to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment, as the proof submitted failed to establish that the claims at issue had not been timely denied. As a result, the judgment was reversed, the order granting plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was vacated, and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was denied.
Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51358(U))
August 16, 2019
The court considered the fact that the plaintiff had commenced an action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for services provided to its assignor, who was injured in an accident on October 24, 2011. Prior to this action, the defendant had brought a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court pertaining to the same accident, and the Supreme Court had granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff's action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata based on the Supreme Court's order. The holding of the court was that the present action was indeed barred under the doctrine of res judicata, as any judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the instant action would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the Supreme Court's order. Therefore, the court affirmed the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Lida’s Med. Supply, Inc. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51356(U))
August 16, 2019
The main issue in this case was whether Lida's Medical Supply, Inc. was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Hereford Insurance Co. The court considered the fact that the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) and the timing of the denial of claim forms issued by the defendant. The court held that while the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should have been denied as the proof submitted failed to establish that the claims had not been timely denied, the defendant's cross motion for summary judgement dismissing the complaint was properly denied as the follow-up IME scheduling letter was not timely. The judgment was reversed, the portion of the order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was vacated, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied.
EMC Health Prods., Inc. v Maryland Auto. Ins. Fund (2019 NY Slip Op 51318(U))
August 9, 2019
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County that granted the defendant's motion to consolidate the instant action with two related actions and to dismiss the complaints in all three actions for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The main issue decided was whether the Civil Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant in the actions. The holding of the case was that the order was affirmed, with the court finding that the Civil Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court determined that the defendant's motion to consolidate the actions and dismiss the complaints was appropriate based on the lack of personal jurisdiction.
EMC Health Prods., Inc. v Maryland Auto. Ins. Fund (2019 NY Slip Op 51317(U))
August 9, 2019
The court considered the consolidation of three related actions for the purposes of disposition of the motion and the dismissal of the complaints in all three actions, based on the contention that the Civil Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The main issue decided was whether the Civil Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant and if the consolidation and dismissal of the complaints was appropriate. The holding of the case was that for the reasons stated in a related case, the order to consolidate the actions and dismiss the complaints was affirmed.
EMC Health Prods., Inc. v Maryland Auto. Ins. Fund (2019 NY Slip Op 51316(U))
August 9, 2019
The main issue in this case was whether the Civil Court of the City of New York had personal jurisdiction over the defendant, Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund. The defendant had moved to consolidate the present case with two related actions and to dismiss all three complaints on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. The court found that the defendant had made a prima facie showing that the Civil Court lacked personal jurisdiction, and the burden shifted to the plaintiff to establish that it had acquired jurisdiction. Plaintiff failed to meet this burden, as their opposition papers consisted only of their counsel's affirmation, who had no personal knowledge of the underlying facts and failed to produce evidence showing a jurisdictional basis for the service. As a result, the court affirmed the order to consolidate the actions and dismiss the complaint in the present case.
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51314(U))
August 9, 2019
The court considered the fact that plaintiff Tam Medical Supply Corp. sought to recover first-party no-fault benefits for supplies provided to its assignor following a motor vehicle accident. The defendant insurer, Kemper, had initiated a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, seeking a declaration that it had no obligation to pay any pending or future claims for no-fault benefits arising from the accident. The Supreme Court granted Kemper's motion for summary judgment, finding that it was not obligated to pay the claims pertaining to the accident. Subsequently, Tam moved in the Civil Court for summary judgment and Kemper cross-moved to dismiss the complaint, which the Civil Court granted. The main issue decided was whether the Civil Court's decision to deny Tam's motion for summary judgment and grant Kemper's cross motion to dismiss the complaint was correct, and the court held that it was and affirmed the judgment.