February 17, 2005

Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 50454(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ocean-diagnostic-imaging-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2005-nyslipop-50454u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: February 17, 2005
Citation: 2005 NY Slip Op 50454(U)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Staged accidents, lack of coverage Timeliness and preclusion
Legal questions: No covered accident (founded belief) · Claimant's prima facie case on motions (see the maps)

Cite as

Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2005 NY Slip Op 50454(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

The insurer's investigator affidavit raised a triable coverage issue based on suspected collision fraud despite an untimely denial. The provider established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) by proving submission of a claim stating the fact and amount of loss and overdue payment. Failure to pay or deny within 30 days under 11 NYCRR 65.15 (g) (3) precluded other defenses, but did not bar the defense that the collision furthered an insurance fraud scheme. The investigator's affidavit established a founded belief that the injuries did not arise from an insured incident. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the provider's summary judgment motion.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 50454(U))

[*1]

Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2005 NYSlipOp 50454(U)

Decided on February 17, 2005

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 17, 2005

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: February 17, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : McCABE, P.J., COVELLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
2004-462 N C

OCEAN DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING P.C. a/a/o SAMONE KING, Appellant,
against
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the District Court, Nassau County (J. Spinola, J.), entered December 10, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Order unanimously affirmed with $10 costs.

In this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered to its assignor, plaintiff health care provider established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof that it submitted a claim, setting forth the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; Damadian MRI in Elmhurst v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51700[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). Since defendant failed to pay or deny the claim within the 30-day statutory period (11 NYCRR 65.15 [g] [3]), it is precluded from raising most defenses (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]).

However, defendant is not precluded from asserting the defense that the collision was in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme, despite the untimely denial of the claim (see Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751 [2002]). The affidavit submitted by defendant’s special investigator was sufficient to demonstrate that the defense was based upon a “founded belief that the alleged injur[ies] do[] not arise out of an insured incident” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). Accordingly, since defendant [*2]demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a lack of coverage (see id.; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]), plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
Decision Date: February 17, 2005

Legal questions (2)

Questions of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.

No covered accident (founded belief)

Open the full map

Did the insurer show the claimed injuries did not arise from a covered accident (staged, intentional, or unrelated)?

This decision: Founded belief shown; the question must be tried

Held the special investigator's affidavit sufficient to show a founded belief that the collision was in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme, raising a triable coverage issue that defeated the provider's motion.

Defense establishedTriable issueInsurer's motion failsDefense not shownThis decision

Of the 234 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 102 (this one included) are in the same category.

Claimant's prima facie case on motions

Open the full map

On summary judgment or another pretrial motion, what must a no-fault claimant show to establish its prima facie case?

This decision: Claimant's proof held to make out its prima facie case (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)

Held the provider established its prima facie case by proof that it submitted a claim setting forth the fact and amount of loss and that payment was overdue.

Proof sufficientMailing/receipt not shownOverdue not shownBusiness-record foundation lackingOther element missingThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 1,065 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 513 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 02359)The hospitals established entitlement to summary judgment by proving that statutory billing forms were mailed and received and payment was overdue.
Damadian Mri In Elmhurst v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2003 NY Slip Op 51700(U))A provider need not submit additional medical-necessity evidence to obtain summary judgment when the insurer is precluded from that defense.

Similar decisions

Ocean Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 51624(U))An insurer's untimely denial does not preclude a defense that the collision furthered an insurance fraud scheme.
Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 50607(U))The insurer's accident analysis report and supporting affidavit raised a coverage issue despite its untimely denial.
Ocean Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50081(U))The insurer's claims-specialist affidavit raised a triable coverage issue based on a founded belief that the collision involved fraud.
Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 50611(U))The insurer raised a factual issue as to whether the collision furthered an insurance fraud scheme despite its late denial.
Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v AIU Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50188(U))The insurer's unsworn investigator's report did not supply admissible evidence supporting its staged-accident defense.