December 12, 2017

Parisien v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51750(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/parisien-v-travelers-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op-51750u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: December 12, 2017
Citation: 2017 NY Slip Op 51750(U) · 58 Misc 3d 130(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: Verification requests
Legal questions: Proof of mailing · Outstanding verification and premature actions (see the maps)

Cite as

Parisien v Travelers Ins. Co., 58 Misc 3d 130(A), 2017 NY Slip Op 51750(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017)

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.

The provider's mailing affidavit raised a triable issue whether the insurer received requested verification and the action was premature. The insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing the assigned no-fault benefits action, establishing timely mailing of its initial and follow-up verification requests and prima facie nonreceipt of the requested material. In opposition, the provider submitted its owner's affidavit, which created a presumption that the verification had been mailed to and received by the insurer under Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co. That evidence raised a factual issue concerning prematurity. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order granting dismissal and denied the insurer's motion.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Parisien v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51750(U))

[*1]

Parisien v Travelers Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 51750(U) [58 Misc 3d 130(A)]

Decided on December 12, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 12, 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
2014-2271 Q C

Jules Francois Parisien, M.D., as Assignee of Brumaire, Shimaine, Appellant,
against
Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Arvind Purohit, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Sally E. Unger, J.), entered August 13, 2014. The order granted 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 denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. By order entered August 13, 2014, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion.

In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant established that it had timely mailed its verification request and follow-up verification request (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and, thus, that plaintiff’s action is premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). However, in opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted an [*2]affidavit from plaintiff’s owner, which affidavit was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether this action is premature (see Healing Health Prods., Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 59 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]).

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.

Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 12, 2017

Legal questions (2)

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.

Proof of mailing

Open the full map

Did a party’s evidence establish that it mailed a no-fault claim, denial, verification request or examination notice?

This decision: The mailing proof (of either party) left only a triable issue of fact on whether or when the item was mailed or received

Held the insurer proved timely mailing of its verification requests, but the provider owner's affidavit raised a presumption that the verification was mailed and received, leaving a factual issue.

Insurer proved mailingInsurer failed to proveProvider proved mailingProvider failed to proveTriable issue on mailingMixed rulingsThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 1,400 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 103 (this one included) are in the same category.

Outstanding verification and premature actions

Open the full map

Did unanswered verification requests make the provider’s claim premature, or justify denying it for nonresponse?

This decision: Fact issues remain on whether the verification defense applies

Held that although the insurer showed timely requests and non-receipt, the provider's affidavit presuming mailing of the verification created a triable issue whether the action was premature.

Premature: verification outstandingNonresponse denial upheldTriable issueInsurer's showing failsProvider compliedThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 385 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 114 (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.
Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 09484) FollowedAn insurer need not pay or deny a no-fault claim until it receives all relevant verification requested.
Healing Health Prods., Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 24145) FollowedThe provider's mail-record affidavit raised a triable issue as to whether the insurer mailed its verification requests.

Similar decisions

T & S Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51597(U))The provider's owner's affidavit raised a factual issue about receipt of verification and whether the action was premature.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51802(U))The provider's affidavit raised a triable issue whether requested verification had been received and the action was premature.
Renelique v Travelers Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50911(U))The provider's affidavit raised a factual issue as to whether the insurer received requested verification and the action was premature.
Parisien v NY City Tr. Auth. (2018 NY Slip Op 51699(U))The self-insurer proved timely mailing of its denials, and the provider's remaining argument was unpreserved.
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51251(U))The provider's affidavit raised a triable issue as to verification receipt and defeated the insurer's prematurity motion.