No-Fault Case Law

The court considered a motion to dismiss a complaint brought by a medical provider to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the Civil Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The holding of the case was that the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted and the order denying the motion was reversed. This decision was based on previous case law, including Pavlova v. American Ind. Ins. Co., as well as Matter of Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Basedow and Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez-Guzman. The decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring.

The case involved an appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue was whether the Civil Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court considered previous case law and ultimately reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss the complaint, granting the defendant's motion. The holding was that the Civil Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and therefore the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

The court considered an appeal from a provider seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, where the defendant sought to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The main issue decided was whether the Civil Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The holding of the case was that the order, insofar as appealed from, was reversed, with the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint being granted. This decision was made for reasons stated in Pavlova v American Ind. Ins. Co., and it was also supported by previous cases such as Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Basedow and Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Gutierrez-Guzman.

The relevant facts considered by the court were that the defendant, American Independent Ins. Co., sought to dismiss a complaint brought by a medical provider 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 case was that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. The decision was based on previous case law, specifically the Pavlova v American Ind. Ins. Co. case, as well as Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Basedow and Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Gutierrez-Guzman.

The court considered that the defendant sought to dismiss the complaint on the ground 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 in an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The holding of the case was that the order denying defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was reversed, and defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted based on the lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The reasoning for the decision was based on a similar case, Pavlova v American Ind. Ins. Co., and other related legal precedents.

The relevant facts considered by the court were that the plaintiff, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, American Independent Insurance Company. The defendant sought to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The main issue decided in this case was whether the Civil Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant in the context of a first-party no-fault benefits claim. The holding of the case was that the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, as the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, reversing the lower court's decision.

The court considered the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Civil Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant 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, based on previous case law, 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 made by the Appellate Term, Second Department on April 26, 2019.

The relevant facts that the court considered in this case include the events leading up to the lawsuit, the actions of the parties involved, the communication between the State, Evanston Insurance, and Bruckel, and the timeliness of notice and disclaimer of coverage. The main issues decided by the court focused on whether Evanston Insurance's disclaimer of coverage for Bruckel was timely and, therefore, effective. The court also considered whether Evanston was notified in a timely manner about the lawsuit against Bruckel, and if the lack of cooperation by Bruckel in not forwarding legal papers to Evanston was a valid basis for the disclaimer of coverage. The holding of the case was that the motions by the defendants, the State of New York and P.S. Bruckel, Inc., were denied without prejudice to renewal upon a more complete record. The court found that there were disputed factual issues that could only be resolved by a jury, and that there were triable issues of fact as to the timeliness of Evanston's disclaimer of coverage and whether they acquired knowledge about the grounds for the disclaimer. Therefore, the case was not suitable for a summary judgment, and the issues would need to be resolved before any judgment could be made.

The court considered whether Civil Court erred in vacating a master arbitrator's award on the ground of misconduct. The relevant facts of the case are that the master arbitrator's response to the self-represented respondent's unsolicited communication did not rise to the level of misconduct so as to warrant vacatur of the arbitration award. The main issue decided was that the master arbitrator's measured response did not constitute misconduct and thus the Civil Court erred in vacating the master arbitrator's award. The holding was that the order of the Civil Court of New York County was reversed and the award of the master arbitrator was reinstated.

The court considered whether the assignor of the plaintiff qualified as an eligible injured person under the Florida insurance policy at issue, as the assignor was not a "family member" of the insured. The main issue decided was whether the assignor was a "family member" of the insured as defined in the insurance policy. The court held that the defendant sufficiently established that the assignor did not reside in the household of the Florida policyholder and thus was not a "family member" of the insured. As a result, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted, and the order was affirmed.