February 22, 2018
Allstate Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. (2018 NY Slip Op 50238(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/allstate-ins-co-v-longevity-med-supply-inc-2018-ny-slip-op-50238u/
- Decided
- February 22, 2018
- Citation
- 2018 NY Slip Op 50238(U) · 58 Misc 3d 158(A)
- Posture
- Article 75 petition
- Outcome
- Provider prevailed
- Legal questions
- Court review of arbitration awards (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 Allstate Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. (2018 NY Slip Op 50238(U))
| Allstate Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 50238(U) [58 Misc 3d 158(A)] |
| Decided on February 22, 2018 |
| Appellate Term, First 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 22, 2018
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Gonzalez, Cooper, JJ.
570783/17
against
Longevity Medical Supply, Inc., a/a/o Tessa Barton, Respondent-Respondent.
Petitioner appeals from an order and judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered on or about December 14, 2016, which denied its petition to vacate a master arbitration award in favor of respondent, awarding it unpaid no-fault benefits in the principal sum of $1,080.00 and attorney’s fees, and confirmed the master arbitration award.
Per Curiam.
Order and judgment (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered on or about December 14, 2016, affirmed, with $25 costs.
Petitioner-insurer failed to demonstrate a ground pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate the master arbitrator’s award. There was a rational basis, based on the no-fault regulations, for the master arbitrator’s finding that respondent-medical provider’s proof was sufficient to establish that (1) it responded to the verification demands sent by petitioner, and (2) that petitioner was therefore required, but failed, to rebut the presumption of receipt of the verification, or show that it timely acted upon receipt by paying or denying the claim, or seeking further verification. The master arbitrator’s legal analysis of the arbitrator’s determination was well within the scope of her authority to review and correct an error of law made by the arbitrator (see 11 NYCRR 65-4.10[a][4]; Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d 224, 231 [1982]; Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207, 211 [1981]). Applying the law to a given set of facts is well within the province of a master arbitrator, even if the master arbitrator’s conclusion differs from that of the arbitrator (see Martinez v Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 146 AD2d 610 [1989]).
We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 22, 2018
Legal questions
A question 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.
When does a court vacate, modify or confirm a no-fault arbitrator’s or master arbitrator’s award under CPLR article 75?
This decision: No ground for vacatur or modification shown: the award is confirmed or left in place
Upheld the master arbitrator's award for the provider because it rationally found the provider answered the verification demands, and correcting the arbitrator's error of law was within the master arbitrator's authority.
Of the 55 decisions on this question in the First Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 34 (this one included) are in the same category.
Similar decisions
- Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Westchester Med. Group, M.D. (2015 NY Slip Op 00876)The insurer failed to establish a statutory ground to vacate a master arbitrator's award confirming payment of no-fault benefits.
- L.I. Community Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51034(U))A master arbitrator's award had a rational basis where the provider's assignment named a different entity and did not establish standing.
- Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Northeast Anesthesia & Pain Mgt. (2016 NY Slip Op 50828(U))An arbitration award directing payment beyond a no-fault policy's monetary limit exceeds the arbitrator's power.
- S.P. Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51978(U))An award must be confirmed under CPLR 7511 (e) when a petition to vacate it is denied.
- Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v Branch Med., P.C. (2022 NY Slip Op 50277(U))An arbitration award directing payment beyond exhausted no-fault policy limits exceeds the arbitrator's power.