No-Fault Case Law

The main issue decided in Majestic Acupuncture, P.C. v Interboro Mut. Ins. Co. was whether the court properly denied the defendant's motion to sever claims for services rendered to different assignors of the plaintiff. The defendant argued that the claims had arisen out of two different accidents and that multiple defenses had been interposed in the answer, and requested to sever the claims. However, the court held that the resolution of the claims for services rendered to the plaintiff's assignors did not involve different questions of fact and law. As a result, the court affirmed the order of the Civil Court, which denied the defendant's motion to sever the claims.

The court considered the facts of the case where Solution Bridge, Inc., as assignee of Castillo, Lilian, appealed an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which granted the respondent, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. The main issue decided was whether the respondent had timely and properly denied the claim underlying the second cause of action based upon the plaintiff's failure to provide requested verification within 120 days of the initial verification request. The holding of the case was that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the claim underlying the first cause of action was timely submitted and as to whether plaintiff provided the requested verification as to the second cause of action. Therefore, the respondent's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the order was affirmed, without costs.

The main issue in this case was whether the provider, plaintiff, had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) and if this failure was grounds for dismissing the complaint. The court considered the evidence presented by the defendant showing the plaintiff's failure to appear for two scheduled EUOs. The court held that the defendant had sufficiently established the plaintiff's failure to appear for the scheduled EUOs, and therefore affirmed the order of the Civil Court granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main holding of the case was that the plaintiff's failure to appear for the scheduled EUOs was grounds for dismissal of the complaint.

The main issues in this case were whether the plaintiff failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) and whether the defendant sufficiently established the plaintiff's failure to appear for the EUOs. The court considered the argument that the plaintiff's remaining contention was not properly before the court, as it was being raised for the first time on appeal. The court ultimately held that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed, as the plaintiff had indeed failed to appear for two scheduled EUOs. The court declined to consider the plaintiff's remaining contention, as it was being raised for the first time on appeal.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, TAM Medical Supply Corp., was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the defendant, Hereford Insurance Co., provided insurance coverage for the vehicle involved in the accident in question. The court held that defendant's affidavits were sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff's claim did not arise out of a covered incident, and as plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Civil Court properly granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Therefore, the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed.

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant, Travelers Insurance Company, was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint filed by the plaintiff, Ksenia Pavlova, D.O., as Assignee of Jan Cedana, to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant argued that the action was premature because the plaintiff had failed to provide verification which the defendant had requested. However, the plaintiff argued that the affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant. The court held that defendant had demonstrated, prima facie, that the action was premature, as they had timely mailed initial and follow-up requests for verification and had not received the requested verification. However, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion was sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the action was premature. Therefore, 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.

The court considered the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the action was premature because the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. The court held that plaintiff's opposition to defendant's cross motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as the "affidavit" from plaintiff's owner was neither signed nor sworn to before a notary public. Consequently, the court affirmed the order, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The main issue in this case was whether the insurance company, GEICO, was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by a medical provider, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, for failing to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) regarding assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The court found that the proof submitted by GEICO was sufficient to demonstrate that the denial of claim form had been timely mailed and that the medical provider had failed to appear for the EUOs. The court also stated that the insurer did not have to set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs in order to establish its entitlement to summary judgment. Lastly, the court refused to consider the medical provider's remaining argument, as it was being raised for the first time on appeal, and affirmed the order granting GEICO's motion for summary judgment. The holding of the case was that GEICO was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, a medical supply company, was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits as the assignee of an individual. The main issue decided was whether the defendant, an auto leasing insurance company, was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the assignor's failure to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs). The court found that the proof submitted by the defendant was sufficient to establish the proper mailing of the IME scheduling letters and that the assignor had failed to appear for the IMEs. As a result, the court affirmed the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The holding of the case was that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment based on the assignor's failure to appear for the IMEs, and the court affirmed the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The relevant facts considered by the court were that Performance Plus Medical, P.C. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from American Transit Ins. Co. The main issue decided was whether defendant had issued an insurance policy covering the subject loss. The holding of the court was that the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed, with costs of $25. The court found that the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to demonstrate that it had not issued a policy covering the subject loss, and therefore, the order was affirmed.