April 6, 2011
All County, LLC v Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50621(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/all-county-llc-v-unitrin-advantage-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op-50621u/
- Decided
- April 6, 2011
- Citation
- 2011 NY Slip Op 50621(U) · 31 Misc 3d 134(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Later treatment
- Followed in 1 later decision (see Cited by)
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 All County, LLC v Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50621(U))
| All County, LLC v Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 50621(U) [31 Misc 3d 134(A)] |
| Decided on April 6, 2011 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : TANENBAUM, J.P., MOLIA and LaCAVA, JJ
.
against
UNITRIN ADVANTAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Fred J. Hirsh, J.), dated December 23, 2009. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, without 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 on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed
to comply with a condition precedent to coverage in that
he had failed to appear for an independent medical examination (IME). The District Court
denied defendant’s motion, and defendant appeals.
In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant submitted an affidavit of an employee of Alternative Consulting and Examinations (ACE), which had been hired by defendant to schedule the IMEs. That affidavit sufficiently established that the IME notices had been sent to plaintiff’s assignor in accordance with ACE’s standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2008]; Richard Morgan Do, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 134[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50242[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]; Chi Acupuncture, P.C. v Kemper Auto & Home Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 141[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50352[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant also submitted an affidavit of the doctor who was to perform the IMEs, which established that the assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., [*2]35 AD3d 720 [2006]). In addition, defendant sufficiently established that the denial of claim forms were timely mailed in accordance with defendant’s standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d at 1124).
We note that, contrary to the finding of the District Court, while Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-3.5 (e) states that a no-fault insurer must base its request for an examination under oath upon “the application of objective standards so that there is specific objective justification supporting the use of such examination,” it does not impose such a standard on a request for an IME.
As the appearance of the assignor at an IME is 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., 35 AD3d 720), defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 06, 2011
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.
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 proved the IME no-show defense and that the objective-justification requirement of 65-3.5 (e) applies only to EUOs, not to IME requests.
Of the 858 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 527 (this one included) are in the same category.
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 (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Granted summary judgment on the IME no-show defense after finding, among its elements, that the denial of claim forms were timely mailed.
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 (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Held the scheduler's and insurer's office-practice proof sufficient to establish mailing of the IME notices and timely mailing of the denials.
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.
- Richard Morgan Do, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 50242(U))The insurer's cross motion for summary judgment on IME nonappearance was upheld upon sufficient proof of mailing of the requests.
- Chi Acupuncture, P.C. v Kemper Auto & Home Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50352(U))The insurer failed to support the alleged IME nonappearances with admissible evidence from anyone with personal knowledge.
- 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.
Cited by
A label shows how the later decision treated this one.
- Brownsville Advance Med., P.C. v Kemper Independence Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51629(U)) FollowedThe insurer's IME report established lack of medical necessity, and the provider offered no opposing sworn evidence from a medical professional.
Similar decisions
- By MD, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51232(U))The provider's affidavit failed to rebut the presumption that the assignor received the duly mailed IME notices.
- East 75th St. Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50564(U))The insurer proved mailing of the IME notices, timely mailing of the denials, and the assignor's failure to attend the scheduled IMEs. An employee of the scheduling company established mailing through its standard office practices and procedures.
- Village Med. Supply, Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50631(U))The insurer established timely IME notices and the assignor's nonappearance, defeating the provider's claims.
- All Borough Group Med. Supply, Inc. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50949(U))The insurer's affidavits established timely mailing of IME requests and denials and the assignor's failure to attend the IMEs. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed summary judgment dismissing the provider's complaint.
- Triangle R, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51854(U))The insurer established the assignor's IME nonappearances and timely mailing of notices and the denial, warranting dismissal.