May 30, 2007

Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51127(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vista-surgical-supplies-inc-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-51127u/

Court
Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County
Judge
Gold, J.
Decided
May 30, 2007
Citation
2007 NY Slip Op 51127(U) · 15 Misc 3d 1143(A)
Posture
Other motion
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Issues
Interest and attorney fees
Cite as
Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 1143(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 51127(U) (Civ Ct, Kings County 2007)

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.

Interest on the provider's claim accrued from filing the summons, despite an untimely or improper denial. After summary judgment for the provider, the insurer sought clarification of the interest calculation and asserted that its payments satisfied the judgment. Following East Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., the Civil Court, Kings County, applied 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (c) to the assignee and rejected accrual beginning 30 days after receipt of the bills. It granted the insurer's application, vacated the marshal's levy and sale notice, and found the underlying order satisfied.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51127(U))

[*1]
Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
2007 NY Slip Op 51127(U) [15 Misc 3d 1143(A)]
Decided on May 30, 2007
Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Kings County
Gold, J.
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 30, 2007

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County



Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. a/a/o Anastasia Fedotova, Plaintiff,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant.

97323/04

Lila P. Gold, J.

This Order to Show Cause was brought by the defendant in Special 1 in order to clarify the Court’s Decision and Order dated May 16, 2006 granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

The Decision and Order dated May 16, 2006 granted judgment for Plaintiff in the amount of $1714.00 plus statutory interest, attorneys’ fees and costs/fees of $65.00.

Defendant made payment to Plaintiff upon receipt of the Order in the amount of $2,460.16 and $557.03. Plaintiff claims that approximately $450.00 of the judgement amount has not been paid. The discrepancy in the amount due to Plaintiff is the based upon the date from which interest, and attorneys’ fees thereon, begin to accrue. It is Defendant’s position that interest should be calculated from the filing of the summons. Plaintiff’s contends that interest should be calculated from thirty (30) days after Defendant received Plaintiff’s bills for no-fault benefits.

This court is asked to determine at what point interest begins to accrue on an untimely denial and/or improper denial under the no-fault regulations. It is plaintiff’s contention that interest on untimely and/or improper denials received by an assignee/medical provider should begin to accrue 30 days after an insurer receives a proper proof of claim. Defendant argues that interest should not accrue until the no-fault claimant requests arbitration or institutes a lawsuit. Plaintiff and Defendant both presented a civil court decision, East Acupuncture, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2005 NY Slip Op 25242, 2 (NY Misc. 2005), which was directly on point regarding this issue. Plaintiff based their position on the holding in East Acupuncture, P.C. (Id.) that interest is to accrue from the thirtieth day after submission of a bill if the Defendant issues a late or improper denial. Defendant’s papers respectfully submitted that the court in East Acupuncture, P.C. erred in its decision.

Subsequent to Defendant’s filing of the Order to Show Cause, the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the 2nd and 11th Districts reversed the order of the J. Matos entered June 28, 2005. East Acupuncture, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2007 NY Slip Op 27109 (NY Misc. 2007). In this decision, the Appellate Term concluded that “the regulations, read as a whole in accordance with the rules of construction, the deference to be accorded the Superintendent’s assertion of intent, and the undesirable consequences of exempting assignees from the limitation imposed by 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (c), lead to the conclusion that the reference to “applicant” in 11 NYCRR 65-[*2]3.9 (c) includes an eligible injured person’s assignee.” East Acupuncture, P.C. (Id.) Therefore, concluding that interest does not begin to accrue on an untimely denial and/or improper denial under the no-fault regulations until the no-fault claimant requests arbitration or institutes a lawsuit.

Based upon the foregoing, interest did not begin to accrue on this claim until the filing of the summons.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Order to Show Cause is hereby granted. Marshal’s Notice of Levy and Sale is vacated, Defendant has satisfied the underlying order in this matter dated May 16, 2006.

This opinion constitutes the decision of the Court. A copy of this decision will be mailed to the parties.

Dated:May 30, 2007

____________________________

Lila P. Gold, J.C.C.

Similar decisions