November 16, 2018
Pavlova v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51632(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pavlova-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op51632u/
- Decided
- November 16, 2018
- Citation
- 2018 NY Slip Op 51632(U) · 61 Misc 3d 141(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- EUO no-show
- Legal questions
- No-show defense: insurer's proof (see the maps)
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.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Pavlova v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51632(U))
| Pavlova v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 51632(U) [61 Misc 3d 141(A)] |
| Decided on November 16, 2018 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 16, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-428 K C
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff and Cheryl F. Korman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered January 26, 2016. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).
Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Furthermore, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting the EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate “as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [provider] . . . that the [provider] twice failed to appear, and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claim[]” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]; see Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 54 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 144[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51653[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). [*2]Consequently, plaintiff has not provided any basis to disturb the Civil Court’s order.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 16, 2018
Legal questions
A question 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.
Did the insurer prove its IME/EUO no-show defense: mailed, compliant scheduling requests and the claimant’s nonappearance?
This decision: Insurer proved mailed, compliant requests and the nonappearance; claimant's answers rejected
Held the insurer's proof sufficient to show the provider failed to appear for the EUOs and that it need not set forth objective reasons for the EUO requests to make its prima facie case.
Of the 851 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 525 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 09604) FollowedAn insurer may deny benefits retroactively to the date of loss for failure to attend reasonably required IMEs under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.
- Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon (2014 NY Slip Op 00092) FollowedThe assignor's two EUO nonappearances supported a declaration that the providers were not entitled to no-fault benefits.
- Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51653(U))The provider failed to identify discovery that could raise a triable issue concerning the insurer's EUO nonappearance defense.
Similar decisions
- Pavlova v Hartford Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50693(U))The insurer's attorney's affirmation established the provider's EUO nonappearance, and the insurer's proof supported proper mailing of the denial.
- Pavlova v Allstate Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51061(U))The insured's EUO testimony and affidavit established that the alleged injury did not arise from an insured incident.
- Pavlova v Nationwide Ins. (2020 NY Slip Op 50999(U))The insurer's summary judgment motion based on the assignor's EUO nonappearance was granted, and the provider's cross motion was denied.
- Pavlova v ELRAC, Inc. (2018 NY Slip Op 50823(U))The self-insurer's summary judgment dismissal for the provider's EUO nonappearance was affirmed on proof of timely denial mailing.
- Pavlova v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50843(U))The insurer's cross motion for summary judgment was granted on the ground that it had issued no policy covering the loss.