December 8, 2004

King’s Med. Supply Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 51550(U))

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether the court should reverse the order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on default and should restore the matter to the motion calendar for a determination of the plaintiff's underlying motion on the merits. The relevant facts considered by the court were that the defendant denied the assignor's claims on the basis of each assignor's failure to appear for a scheduled independent medical examination (IME). However, the court held that an assignor's failure to attend a single requested IME did not afford the insurer a valid basis to deny a no-fault claim where the insurer failed to exhaust the follow-up verification protocols. The court reversed the order and denied the defendant's motion to vacate the order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, reinstating the judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Reported in New York Official Reports at King’s Med. Supply Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 51550(U))

King’s Med. Supply Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 51550(U)) [*1]
King’s Med. Supply Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
2004 NY Slip Op 51550(U)
Decided on December 8, 2004
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 8, 2004

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: December 8, 2004 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ.
2003-1042 K C
KING’S MEDICAL SUPPLY INC. a/a/o July Gutierrez and Niurka Guzman, Appellant,

against

NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (R. Garson, J.), entered June 10, 2003, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate an order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on default and which restored the matter to the motion calendar for a determination of plaintiff’s underlying motion on the merits.

Order unanimously reversed without costs, defendant’s motion to vacate the order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied, and judgment reinstated.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, after the court awarded plaintiff summary judgment upon defendant’s default, defendant was obligated to establish both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310 [2000]). The insurer’s only defense, that each assignor failed to appear for a scheduled independent medical examination (IME), is without merit and the motion to vacate should have been denied.

Within days of each assignor’s failure to appear for an IME scheduled subsequent to defendant’s receipt of plaintiff’s proofs of claim, defendant denied the assignee’s claims. However, an assignor’s failure to attend a single requested IME does not afford an insurer a valid basis to deny a no-fault claim where the insurer failed to exhaust the follow-up verification [*2]protocols, which required, inter alia, that “if any requested verification has not been supplied to the insurer 30 calendar days after the original request, the insurer shall, within 10 calendar days, follow up with the party from whom the verification was originally requested [with a new request]” (11 NYCRR 65.15 [e] [2] [now 15 days,11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (b)]; S & M Supply v Allstate Ins. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 51191[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists] [defendant’s rejection of the claim, “before plaintiff’s time to produce the verification had expired, on the ground that it had not received same” was premature and ineffective]; see also 11 NYCRR 65.15 [g] [2] [iii] [“an insurer shall not issue a denial of claim form . . . prior to its receipt of verification of all of the relevant information requested . . .”]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v County-Wide Ins. Co., 295 AD2d 583, 585 [2002]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 233 AD2d 431, 433 [1996]; Glassman D.C., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 192 Misc 2d 264, 265 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2002]). As the denials otherwise interposed no substantive defense to the action, and its time to pay or deny the claims having expired (Insurance Law § 5106 [a]), defendant is precluded from interposing defenses with exceptions herein inapplicable (Amaze Med. Supply v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 43, 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Accordingly, defendant’s motion should have been denied on the ground that it has failed to establish a meritorious defense warranting the vacatur of the order granted on default.
Decision Date: December 08, 2004