June 4, 2004

A.B. Med. Servs. Pllc v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 50575(U))

Headnote

The insurer's investigator raised a triable issue of coverage as to whether the alleged injuries arose from an insured incident. The providers sought summary judgment for assigned no-fault benefits and challenged the insurer's opposition proof. The investigator's detailed affidavit supplied ample facts and founded beliefs supporting a coverage issue under Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the providers' motion and rejected their remaining contentions.

Reported in New York Official Reports at A.B. Med. Servs. Pllc v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 50575(U))

[*1]
A.B. Med. Servs. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
2004 NY Slip Op 50575(U)
Decided on June 4, 2004
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 4, 2004

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT:McCABE, P.J., RUDOLPH and ANGIOLILLO, JJ.
NO. 2003-1088 N C
A.B. MEDICAL SERVICES PLLC D.A.V. CHIROPRACTIC P.C. SOMUN ACUPUNCTURE P.C. a/a/o Junior Joseph Lionel Marius Rohan Pinnach, Appellants,

against

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Repondent.

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the District Court, Nassau County (J. Spinola, J.), entered May 19, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Order unanimously affirmed with $10 costs.

Plaintiffs commenced the instant action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. In opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted an affidavit from an investigator employed within defendant’s Special Investigations Unit. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the investigator’s detailed affidavit set forth ample facts and founded beliefs to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a lack of coverage because the alleged injuries did not arise from an insured incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). As a result, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are also lacking in merit.
Decision Date: June 04, 2004

Cited by

Similar decisions