September 22, 2017
Laga v American Commerce Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51254(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/laga-v-american-commerce-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op-51254u/
- Decided
- September 22, 2017
- Citation
- 2017 NY Slip Op 51254(U) · 57 Misc 3d 134(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- EUO no-show
- Legal questions
- No-show defense: insurer's proof (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 Laga v American Commerce Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51254(U))
| Laga v American Commerce Ins. Co. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 51254(U) [57 Misc 3d 134(A)] |
| Decided on September 22, 2017 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 22, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2014-2015 Q C
against
American Commerce Insurance Company, Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Mitchell L. Kaufman, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered July 30, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the second through fourth causes of action and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the second through fourth causes of action, and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).
Contrary to plaintiff’s only argument as to defendant’s cross motion, the affirmation submitted by defendant was sufficient to establish plaintiff’s failure to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 22, 2017
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 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 insurer's affirmation sufficient to establish the provider's failure to appear for the scheduled examinations under oath, rejecting the provider's only argument against the cross motion.
Of the 858 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 527 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- 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
- Laga v Lancer Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51244(U))The insurer's summary judgment dismissing the complaint for the provider's EUO nonappearance was affirmed.
- LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51655(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
- RA Med. Servs., P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50793(U))The insurer's EUO requests were nullities for the claims at issue because the initial request was sent more than 30 days after receipt.
- LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Automotive Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50696(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to obtain summary judgment based on a provider's nonappearance.
- Laga v Allstate Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50416(U))The insurer failed to establish timely mailing of its denials and therefore did not show that its defenses escaped preclusion.