August 6, 2012
Perfect Point Acupuncture, P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51486(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/perfect-point-acupuncture-p-c-v-auto-one-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op51486u/
- Decided
- August 6, 2012
- Citation
- 2012 NY Slip Op 51486(U) · 36 Misc 3d 140(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Split result
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 Perfect Point Acupuncture, P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51486(U))
| Perfect Point Acupuncture, P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 51486(U) [36 Misc 3d 140(A)] |
| Decided on August 6, 2012 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ
2010-2016 K C.
against
Auto One Insurance Company, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Peter Paul Sweeney, J.), entered January 14, 2010. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Defendant’s proffered defense to this action is that it timely denied the claims based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs). However, defendant failed to establish that the letters scheduling the IMEs had been mailed to plaintiff’s assignor (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d [*2]& 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Thus, defendant did not demonstrate that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to comply with a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Consequently, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should not have been granted.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]).
Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied. In view of the foregoing, we need not reach plaintiff’s remaining contentions.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 06, 2012
Legal questions (3)
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.
On summary judgment or another pretrial motion, what must a no-fault claimant show to establish its prima facie case?
This decision: Insufficient: claimant did not prove the claim was overdue (not paid or timely denied)
Held the provider's summary judgment motion properly denied, citing the rule that a provider must show its claims were not timely denied, without further explanation.
Of the 1,065 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 247 (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 proof did not establish mailing of its denial, verification request or IME/EUO notice
Held the insurer failed to establish that the IME scheduling letters were mailed to the assignor, so its no-show defense could not support summary judgment.
Of the 1,400 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 260 (this one included) are in the same category.
Did the insurer prove its IME/EUO no-show defense: mailed, compliant scheduling requests and the claimant’s nonappearance?
This decision: Insurer failed to prove the scheduling letters were mailed or properly addressed
Held the insurer did not show it mailed the IME scheduling letters to the assignor, so it failed to prove a breach of the IME condition precedent and its cross motion should have been denied.
Of the 858 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 118 (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.
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 27345) FollowedAn insurer may prove mailing by describing its standard procedure for properly addressing and mailing items.
- 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.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 08933) FollowedThe provider failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment because the insurer partially paid and denied the claim within 30 days.
Similar decisions
- Acupuncture Choice, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51822(U))The provider failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment where timely IME nonappearance denials remained unrebutted.
- Bronx Acupuncture Therapy, P.C. v A. Cent. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51870(U))The insurer established timely IME scheduling, the assignor's nonappearance and timely denials, warranting dismissal of the claims.
- Acupuncture Approach, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51601(U))The insurer defeated an IME notice-address challenge by proving that scheduling letters were also mailed to the assignor's attorney.
- Pro Health Acupuncture, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. (2016 NY Slip Op 50380(U))The insurer's affidavits established timely mailing of the IME requests and denials and the assignor's failure to attend duly scheduled IMEs. The provider sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits.
- NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51263(U))The insurer's summary judgment motion based on the assignor's IME nonappearance was granted on appeal.