August 16, 2007
Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51612(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/infinity-health-prods-ltd-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-51612u/
- Decided
- August 16, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 51612(U) · 16 Misc 3d 135(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Legal questions
- No covered accident (founded belief) (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 Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51612(U))
| Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 51612(U) [16 Misc 3d 135(A)] |
| Decided on August 16, 2007 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2006-855 K C.
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (George J. Silver, J.), entered March 17, 2006, deemed an appeal from a judgment entered on April 10, 2006 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the March 17, 2006 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and implicitly denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $864.75.
Judgment reversed without costs, the branch of the order entered March 17, 2006 which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment vacated and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was granted. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether defendant proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there was an issue of fact as to whether the injuries plaintiff’s assignor allegedly sustained arose from an insured incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). Upon a review of the record, we find that the affidavit submitted by defendant’s investigator was sufficient to demonstrate a “founded belief that the alleged injur[ies] do[] not arise out of an insured incident” (id. at 199). Accordingly, since defendant demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether [*2]there was a lack of coverage (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, supra; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]), plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment.Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 16, 2007
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.
Did the insurer show the claimed injuries did not arise from a covered accident (staged, intentional, or unrelated)?
This decision: Founded belief shown; the question must be tried
Held the insurer's investigator's affidavit sufficient to show a founded belief that the injuries did not arise from an insured incident, raising a triable issue of lack of coverage, so the provider's summary judgment was vacated.
Of the 234 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 102 (this one included) are in the same category.
Similar decisions
- Infinity Health Prods. Ltd. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51611(U))The insurer's investigator's affidavit raised a triable coverage issue, and the provider waived its CPLR 2309 (c) objection.
- Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50195(U))The insurer failed to establish that the assignor's alleged injuries did not arise from an insured incident.
- Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v Zurich Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51869(U))The insurer established that it had received no claims for the accident alleged in the complaint, and the provider failed to rebut that showing.
- Bedford Park Med. Practice, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 52285(U))The insurer's investigator raised a triable coverage issue by showing a founded belief that the injuries did not arise from an insured incident.
- Infinity Health Prods. v Amex Assur. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51233(U))The provider's billing manager's affidavit failed to establish a business-records foundation for its summary judgment documents.