September 22, 2017
Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v Hartford Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51262(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/greenway-med-supply-corp-v-hartford-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op51262u/
- Decided
- September 22, 2017
- Citation
- 2017 NY Slip Op 51262(U) · 57 Misc 3d 135(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Legal questions
- No-show: coverage defense or precludable? · Proof of mailing (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 Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v Hartford Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51262(U))
| Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v Hartford Ins. Co. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 51262(U) [57 Misc 3d 135(A)] |
| Decided on September 22, 2017 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 22, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN SOLOMON, JJ
2014-2234 K C
against
Hartford Insurance Company, Appellant.
Nightingale Law, P.C. (Michael S. Nightingale, Esq.), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Oleg Rybak, Esq.), for respondent (no brief filed).
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered August 18, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon the assignor’s failure to appear for independent medical examinations. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court denied defendant’s motion but held, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that, as to defendant, the only remaining issue for trial was the timely and proper mailing of the denial of claim forms.
The proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to establish that defendant had timely denied the claims at issue (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 22, 2017
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.
Is an IME/EUO no-show defense precluded if the insurer did not timely deny the claim on that ground?
This decision: Timely denial required as part of the no-show defense, and the insurer showed it
Held the insurer's proof established timely denial of the claims, the only issue left for trial on its IME no-show defense, so its summary judgment motion was granted.
Of the 508 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 338 (this one included) are in the same category.
Did a party’s evidence establish that it mailed a no-fault claim, denial, verification request or examination notice?
This decision: The insurer's (or its agent's) proof established mailing of its denial, verification request or IME/EUO notice
Held the insurer's proof sufficient to establish timely denial of the claims, resolving the only remaining issue of proper mailing and entitling it to summary judgment on its IME no-show defense.
Of the 1,400 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 809 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 04072) FollowedThe insurer raised factual issues concerning a proper timely denial and its entitlement to deny the hospital's claim.
Similar decisions
- Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51901(U))The insurer's summary judgment dismissal for the provider's EUO nonappearance was affirmed.
- Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51765(U))The insurer's attorney's affirmation established the provider's EUO nonappearance, and its affidavits proved timely mailing of the denial.
- Compas Med., P.C. v Hartford Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50953(U))The insurer's submissions established a presumption that its IME nonappearance denials were timely and properly mailed.
- Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v Elrac, Inc. (2017 NY Slip Op 51198(U))The defendant's summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed on the defense of untimely claim submission under 11 NYCRR 65-2.4 (c).
- Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v Repwest Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 51269(U))The defendant claims handler established that it had issued no automobile policy covering the accident and owed no no-fault coverage.