July 16, 2008

Beta Supply, Inc. v Government Employees Insurance Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51406(U))

Headnote

The court considered the fact that the defendant's documentary submissions were sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the defendant's verification requests were timely mailed and received by the plaintiff. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff's claim for payment was premature, as the plaintiff did not respond to the defendant's verification requests, and an insurer is not required to pay or deny a claim until it receives verification of all relevant requested information. The holding of the case was that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the action, as there was no triable issue as to whether the plaintiff provided the defendant with the requested information.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Beta Supply, Inc. v Government Employees Insurance Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51406(U))

Beta Supply, Inc. v Government Employees Insurance Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51406(U)) [*1]

Beta Supply, Inc. v Government Empls. Ins. Co.

2008 NY Slip Op 51406(U) [20 Misc 3d 129(A)]

Decided on July 16, 2008

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 16, 2008

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McKEON, P.J., DAVIS, SCHOENFELD JJ
570502/07.

Beta Supply, Inc. a/a/o Calmey Jean, Plaintiff-Respondent,
against
Government Employees Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered May 14, 2007, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered May 14, 2007, reversed, with $10 costs, motion denied, and upon searching the record, summary judgment awarded to defendant dismissing the action.

In this action to recover no-fault first party benefits, defendant’s documentary submissions were sufficient to give rise to a presumption that defendant’s verification requests were timely mailed and received by plaintiff (see Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828 [1978]). Inasmuch as an insurer is not required to pay or deny a claim until it receives verification of all relevant requested information (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8[b][3]; Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 19 AD3d 569 [2005]), and it being undisputed on this record that plaintiff did not respond to defendant’s verification requests, plaintiff’s claim for payment was premature. Under these circumstances, where no triable issue exists as to whether plaintiff provided defendant with the requested information, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the action (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 533 [2004]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: July 16, 2008