No-Fault Case Law
BCc Chiropractic, P.C. v Farmers New Century Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50680(U))
May 3, 2019
The court considered the fact that the defendant had scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) for the plaintiff's assignor, but the assignor failed to appear for these scheduled EUOs. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted on the grounds that the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs. The holding of the case was that the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted, as the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant's motion. Therefore, the court reversed the order of the Civil Court and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50679(U))
May 3, 2019
The court considered the fact that Alleviation Medical Services, P.C. was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The main issues decided were that the defendant had provided sufficient proof that the independent medical examination (IME) scheduling letters were mailed properly and that the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs. The court held that the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted and the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was denied. Therefore, the order was affirmed, and the defendant was awarded $25 in costs.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50678(U))
May 3, 2019
The relevant facts considered by the court were that Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from GEICO Ins. Co. The main issue decided was whether GEICO Ins. Co. had the right to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the provider's failure to appear for an examination under oath (EUO). The court held that the insurer must demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it had twice duly demanded an EUO from the provider, that the provider had twice failed to appear, and that the insurer had issued a timely denial of the claim. The court found that while the insurer made such a showing regarding the second cause of action, it did not demonstrate that it is not precluded from interposing its proffered defense with respect to the first cause of action. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action, but denied summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50677(U))
May 3, 2019
The court considered whether the provider, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) in a case to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from GEICO Insurance Company. The main issue decided was whether the proof submitted by GEICO Insurance Company was sufficient to demonstrate that Gentlecare had failed to appear for the EUOs. The court held that the proof submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion was sufficient to demonstrate that Gentlecare had failed to appear for the EUOs, and therefore denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court found that the plaintiff's remaining arguments were either improperly raised for the first time on appeal and/or lacked merit.
Pravel, Inc. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50644(U))
April 26, 2019
The court considered the denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) on the grounds that the Civil Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The main issue was whether the Civil Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant in an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The court held 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. The decision was based on the precedent set in Pavlova v American Ind. Ins. Co. and the cases of Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Basedow and Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Gutierrez-Guzman. The appellate judges Pesce, Weston, and Aliotta concurred with the decision to reverse the order and grant the defendant's motion.
Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50643(U))
April 26, 2019
The relevant facts considered by the court in this case were that it involved an action by a medical provider seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The issue decided by the court was whether the Civil Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant insurance company, and the court ultimately determined that it did not. The holding of the case was that the order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) was reversed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. The decision was supported by previous case law and the reasons stated in Pavlova v American Ind. Ins. Co. The concurring judges were Pesce, Weston, and Aliotta.
JCC Med., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50642(U))
April 26, 2019
The court considered the issue of personal jurisdiction over the defendant in a case brought by a medical provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from an insurance company. The defendant insurer appealed from an order of the Civil Court that denied their motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. In its decision, the court reversed the order and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, citing a previous case as precedent. The holding of the court was that the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, as the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant in the case.
Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 50641(U))
April 26, 2019
The relevant facts considered by the court were that plaintiff, an acupuncture provider, was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from defendant, Nationwide Ins. The main issue decided was whether plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment, and whether defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted. The court held that defendant failed to establish that the notice of cancellation of the insurance policy had been mailed to the insured in accordance with Pennsylvania law. Additionally, plaintiff's moving papers failed to establish that defendant did not deny plaintiff's claim within the requisite 30-day period, so plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The court ultimately modified the order to provide that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied.
GL Acupuncture, P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50640(U))
April 26, 2019
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the Civil Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The holding of the court 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. The court cited previous cases in support of its decision, including Pavlova v American Ind. Ins. Co., Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Basedow, and Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Gutierrez-Guzman. The decision was made by Justices Pesce, Weston, and Aliotta.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50639(U))
April 26, 2019
The main issue in this case was whether the Civil Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant in an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The court considered the relevant facts, including the denial of 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 reversed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, as the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The decision was made in line with similar cases, as referenced in the opinion.