November 16, 2018
Maiga Prods. Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51646(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/maiga-prods-corp-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op51646u/
- Decided
- November 16, 2018
- Citation
- 2018 NY Slip Op 51646(U) · 61 Misc 3d 143(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- EUO 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 Maiga Prods. Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51646(U))
| Maiga Prods. Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 51646(U) [61 Misc 3d 143(A)] |
| Decided on November 16, 2018 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 16, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-1452 K C
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Appellant.
Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff and Cheryl F. Korman of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered November 5, 2015. 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 a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion, which sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).
In its motion, defendant established that initial and follow-up letters scheduling an EUO had been timely mailed; that plaintiff had failed to appear on either date (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]); and that the claims had been timely denied on that ground (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant’s motion, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 16, 2018
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 insurer established timely mailed initial and follow-up EUO scheduling letters and the provider's nonappearance on both dates, and the provider raised no triable issue.
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.
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)
Listed among the elements the insurer established that the claims had been timely denied on the EUO no-show ground.
Of the 508 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 338 (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 insurer established timely mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and timely denial of the claims.
Of the 1,400 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 809 (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.
- 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.
Similar decisions
- Maiga Prods. Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50845(U))The insurer's proof raised a presumption that the EUO scheduling letters and denial forms were properly mailed.
- LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51137(U))The insurer established timely EUO notices and denials, the provider's nonappearance, and entitlement to dismissal without a triable factual issue.
- Maiga Prods. Corp. v Unitrin Auto & Home Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50113(U))The provider failed to establish its prima facie case, and the insurer failed to prove two missed EUOs. The provider did not show that the insurer failed to deny within 30 days or issued a timely denial that was conclusory, vague or meritless under Insurance Law § 5106 (a).
- PR Med., P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51649(U))The insurer established timely EUO notices and denials and the assignor's two nonappearances; the provider raised no triable issue.
- Maiga Prods. Corp. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50638(U))The provider's motion for entry of a default judgment in its action for assigned no-fault benefits was denied on appeal.