October 27, 2009
St. Barnabas Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 07824)
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/st-barnabas-hosp-v-allstate-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-07824/
- Decided
- October 27, 2009
- Citation
- 2009 NY Slip Op 07824 · 66 AD3d 996
- Posture
- Default or vacatur
- Outcome
- Provider prevailed
- Later treatment
- Followed in 1 later decision (see Cited by)
- Issues
- Defaults and vacatur
- Legal questions
- Vacating a default: excuse and defense (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 St. Barnabas Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 07824)
| St. Barnabas Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07824 [66 AD3d 996] |
| October 27, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| St. Barnabas Hospital, as Assignee of Patrick Bateman,
Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant. |
—[*1] McDonnell & Adels, PLLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Martha S. Henley and Short & Billy [Skip Short], of counsel), for appellant.
Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under two insurance contracts, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), entered September 25, 2008, as denied that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate so much of a judgment of the same court entered May 15, 2008, as, upon its default in appearing or answering the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff St. Barnabas Hospital, as assignee of Patrick Bateman, and against it in the principal sum of $4,309.64.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A defendant seeking to vacate a judgment entered upon its default in appearing or answering the complaint must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing or answering, as well as a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 58 AD3d 832, 832 [2009]; Verde Elec. Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 672, 672-673 [2008]).
“A proper denial of [a] claim [for no-fault benefits] must include the information called for in the prescribed denial of claim form (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.4 [c] [11]) and must ‘promptly apprise the claimant with a high degree of specificity of the ground or grounds on which the disclaimer is predicated’ ” (Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d 664, 664 [2004], quoting General Acc. Ins. Group v Cirucci, 46 NY2d 862, 864 [1979]). However, a timely denial of a no-fault insurance medical claim alone does not avoid preclusion where said denial is factually insufficient, conclusory, vague, or otherwise involves a defense which has no merit as a matter of law (see Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564, 565 [2005]).
The defendant insurer, Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter Allstate), issued a timely denial of claim within 30 days of its receipt of the completed hospital facility form (NYS Form N-F 5) from the plaintiff St. Barnabas Hospital, as assignee of Patrick Bateman (hereinafter the plaintiff) (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [g]; 65-3.8 [c]). Contrary to Allstate’s contention, however, the Supreme Court properly determined that the denial of claim, which incorrectly stated the amount of the claim and gave an invalid reason for the denial (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.3 [d]; 65-3.5 [g]; see also Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln [*2]Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2009]; Nyack Hosp. v Encompass Ins. Co., 23 AD3d 535, 536 [2005]), was fatally defective (see Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d at 565; Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d at 665; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 226 AD2d 613, 614 [1996]). Thus, Allstate failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Allstate’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate so much of a judgment of the same court entered May 15, 2008, as, upon its default in appearing or answering the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $4,309.64. Skelos, J.P., Covello, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.
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 defaulting party show a reasonable excuse (or lack of notice) and a potentially meritorious defense or claim?
This decision: Relief denied because no potentially meritorious defense or cause of action was shown; excuse accepted or not reached
Held the insurer showed no meritorious defense to vacate the default judgment because its timely denial misstated the claim amount and gave an invalid reason, making it fatally defective.
Of the 170 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 17 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 00528)The insurers showed an excusable default and a potentially meritorious defense based on partial exhaustion of policy limits.
- Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 07663) FollowedA timely but fatally defective denial cannot be cured by supplying omitted information after the 30-day denial period expires.
- Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 02235) FollowedThe insurer failed to prove mailing of its denial, and the denial was incomplete even if timely.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 02589)The insurer's investigation letters did not toll the 30-day period to pay or deny the provider's claim.
- Nyack Hosp. v Encompass Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 08962)An insurer's letters delaying payment pending its investigation do not toll the 30-day period for paying or denying a no-fault claim.
Cited by
A label shows how the later decision treated this one.
- St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 01828) FollowedThe insurer's timely denials were fatally defective because they misstated the bill and disputed amounts and named the wrong applicant.
- NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Esurance Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 04436)The insurer raised factual issues about timely denial and whether the assignor's injury resulted from driving while intoxicated.
- A-Quality Med. Supply v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 20502)The insurer failed to prove its medical necessity defense because supporting peer reviews were inadmissible or unauthenticated.
- Clinton Med. Off. P.C. v Progressive Max Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 26094)The insurer's EUO nonappearance denials were sufficient without listing the scheduled EUO dates.
- Total Chiropratic P.C. v Mercury Cas. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50142(U))The provider's claims were barred by an unvacated default declaratory judgment determining coverage against both provider and assignor.
Similar decisions
- Nyack Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52233(U))The insurer lacked a meritorious defense to vacate its default because a completed hospital facility form replaced the requested no-fault application.
- NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 08613)The hospital failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment because its own papers included a timely and sufficient denial.
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 04260)The insurer obtained default vacatur under CPLR 317 by showing untimely actual notice of the summons and meritorious defenses.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 08447)The hospital failed to establish that the insurer's timely NF-10 denial was too vague or deficient to constitute a proper response.
- St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 06227)The insurer's motion to vacate its default was granted upon a showing of a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense.