February 5, 2016

Advanced Med. Care, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50130(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/advanced-med-care-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2016-ny-slip-op50130u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: February 5, 2016
Citation: 2016 NY Slip Op 50130(U) · 50 Misc 3d 137(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: Policy issues

Cite as

Advanced Med. Care, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 50 Misc 3d 137(A), 2016 NY Slip Op 50130(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016)

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.

The insurer failed to establish effective policy termination because it did not sufficiently prove timely filing of the termination notice with DMV. The insurer sought summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims based on alleged termination of the policy. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (2) (a) required filing a copy of the termination notice with the Department of Motor Vehicles within 30 days of termination's effective date. The assignor was neither the named insured nor shown to be a member of that insured's household, implicating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (3). The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed denial of the insurer's motion because termination had not been established as effective against the assignor.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Advanced Med. Care, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50130(U))

[*1]

Advanced Med. Care, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 50130(U) [50 Misc 3d 137(A)]

Decided on February 5, 2016

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 5, 2016

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : MARANO, P.J., IANNACCI and GARGUILO, JJ.
2013-1810 N C

Advanced Medical Care, P.C. as Assignee of JEAN ADOLPHE, Respondent,
against
Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Fred J. Hirsh, J.), dated July 8, 2013. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the District Court which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

While defendant’s motion was based on its alleged termination of the insurance policy in question, defendant failed to sufficiently demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it had filed a copy of the notice of termination of the insurance policy with the Department of Motor Vehicles within 30 days of the effective date of the termination, as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (2) (a) (see Matter of Progressive Classic Ins. Co. v Kitchen, 46 AD3d 333 [2007]). Therefore, defendant has not established that the termination of the insurance policy was effective with respect to plaintiff’s assignor, who was not the named insured and who was not shown to be a member of the named insured’s household (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [3]; GL Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 48 Misc 3d 141[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51239[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Iannacci and Garguilo, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: February 05, 2016

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

GL Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51239(U)) FollowedThe insurer failed to prove effective cancellation against an assignor outside the named insured's household because timely DMV filing was unproved.

Cited by

Pravel, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50457(U))The insurer failed to prove effective policy cancellation because it lacked admissible proof of timely filing with the DMV. The assignor was neither the named insured nor a member of the insured's household.
Prompt Med. Group, Inc. v Foremost Signature Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51977(U))The insurer failed to prove proper cancellation notice or that cancellation was effective against an assignor outside the insured's household.

Similar decisions

Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 26387)The insurer failed to establish effective policy cancellation because its submissions did not conclusively prove timely filing with DMV. Although the insurer demonstrated mailing of a termination notice to the policyholder under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1), its affidavit and purported DMV notification record did not establish proper filing within 30 days of termination under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (2) (a).
Contemporary Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50464(U))The insurer failed to establish proper and timely mailing of the EUO notices and denial forms supporting its nonappearance defense.
Compas Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51356(U))The insurer failed to establish timely mailing of the denials supporting its EUO nonappearance defense.
Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51591(U))The insurer failed to prove both IME nonappearances, and the provider failed to establish an untimely or legally defective denial.
SK Prime Med. Supply v Permanent Gen. Assur. Corp. (2019 NY Slip Op 52052(U))The insurer established effective policy cancellation before the accident by proving proper mailing and timely filing with the DMV. The insurer sought summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claim for lack of coverage after cancellation for nonpayment of the premium.