August 6, 2015
Hammond v Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51241(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hammond-v-unitrin-advantage-ins-co-2015-ny-slip-op51241u/
- Decided
- August 6, 2015
- Citation
- 2015 NY Slip Op 51241(U) · 48 Misc 3d 141(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- IME no-show
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 Hammond v Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51241(U))
| Hammond v Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 51241(U) [48 Misc 3d 141(A)] |
| Decided on August 6, 2015 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 6, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-823 K C
against
Unitrin Advantage Insurance Company, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered April 27, 2012. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
In this action by providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by an employee of the company which had been retained by defendant to schedule independent medical examinations (IMEs), which affidavit established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed in accordance with that office’s standard mailing practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant also submitted an affidavit by the healthcare professional who was to perform the IMEs, which affidavit established that plaintiffs’ assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). In addition, an affidavit by defendant’s claims representative, as well as an affidavit of service with respect to each denial of claim form, demonstrated that the denial of claim forms, which denied the claims based on plaintiffs’ assignor’s nonappearance at the IMEs, had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16). Since appearance at a duly scheduled IME is a condition precedent to an insurer’s liability on a policy (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d 720), the Civil Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 06, 2015
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 IME scheduler's affidavit proved timely mailing of the scheduling letters and the examining professional's affidavit proved the assignor's nonappearance, so dismissal should have been granted.
Of the 851 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 525 (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)
Held the insurer entitled to dismissal because, besides the IME no-show, a claims representative's affidavit and affidavits of service showed timely mailing of denials based on the nonappearance.
Of the 500 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 334 (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 standard-practice affidavit proved mailing of the IME letters, and the claims representative's affidavit plus affidavits of service proved timely mailing of the denial forms.
Of the 1,384 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 806 (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.
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 27345) FollowedAn insurer may prove mailing by describing its standard procedure for properly addressing and mailing items.
- 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.
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.
- All About Rehabilitation & P.T., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51815(U))An assignor's appearance at an IME is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability under the policy.
- Jamhil Med., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51644(U))The insurer established timely mailing of IME notices and a denial based on the assignor's failure to appear for the scheduled IMEs. The president of the independent medical review service retained to schedule the examinations established timely mailing of the scheduling letters.
- 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.
- Shoreline Healing Acupuncture Group, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51531(U))The insurer established timely IME notices and denials and both assignors' nonappearance, defeating a condition precedent to coverage.