No-Fault Case Law

The court considered a case in which an anesthesia service provider sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from GEICO Insurance company. The main issue that was decided in the case was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, which would justify the dismissal of the complaint. The court affirmed the order from the Civil Court, which denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The holding of the case was that the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled exams under oath, and therefore, the denial of the motion for summary judgment and the granting of the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment were affirmed.

The main issue in the case was whether a provider could recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits if they failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. The court considered the fact that the plaintiff had failed to show up for these examinations, and the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on these grounds. The court's holding was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits due to their failure to appear for the scheduled examinations.

The main issues of the case were whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath and whether this failure justified the denial of first-party no-fault benefits. The court considered the motion for summary judgment by the plaintiff and the cross motion for summary judgment by the defendant. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath and that this justified the denial of first-party no-fault benefits. The court affirmed the order of the Civil Court, which denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's cross motion.

The main issue in this case was whether a provider could recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits when they had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath by the insurance company. The court considered the fact that the plaintiff had failed to appear for the scheduled examinations under oath, and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted. The main holding of the court was that the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed, with $25 costs. The court's decision was based on the fact that the plaintiff's failure to appear for the examinations under oath was a valid reason for denying their motion for summary judgment.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, had moved for summary judgment to recover first-party no-fault benefits, and that the defendant, GEICO Ins. Co., had cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath justified the dismissal of their complaint. The holding of the case was that the court affirmed the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, with $25 in costs. The decision was based on similar reasoning as another case, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. etc., as Assignee of Saint-Louis, Lydia v GEICO Ins. Co., which was decided herewith.

The main issue in the case was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath, as alleged by the defendant, and if so, whether that failure justified the denial of no-fault benefits. The court considered the facts of the case, including the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court ultimately held that the order denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendant's cross motion was affirmed, and that the plaintiff had indeed failed to appear for the scheduled examinations under oath, justifying the denial of no-fault benefits.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs), as well as the proof submitted by the defendant in support of its cross motion, which demonstrated that the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim form had been timely mailed and that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs. The main issue decided was whether the defendant had established its entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that it twice duly demanded an EUO from the plaintiff, that the plaintiff failed to appear, and that the defendant issued a timely denial of the claim. The holding of the case was that the defendant had met its burden to establish entitlement to summary judgment, and the court affirmed the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The main issue in this case was whether the provider, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from GEICO Ins. Co. The court considered the fact that the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, which was the grounds on which the defendant filed a cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court ultimately affirmed the order of the Civil Court, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The holding of the case was that the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath provided valid grounds for the defendant to dismiss the complaint, and therefore the provider was not entitled to recover the no-fault benefits from the defendant.

The main factual scenario of the case was the issuance of a large number of personal automobile insurance policies that included a Mandatory Personal Injury Protection Endorsement. As well, there was a refusal by the supplier of the Kit to disclose its acquisition costs and other pricing information for 120 days under the rule in the statute. The main issue was the legality of such refusal, as well as the determination to deny the claims by the arbitrator as incorrect under the 120-day rule. The court held that the master arbitrator properly exercised his authority and limited his review to whether the awards were incorrect as a matter of law and whether the arbitrator had misapplied the 120-day rule. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of the petition to vacate the master arbitration awards.

The Appellate Division, First Department, considered the case of Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C., which involved an appeal related to a dispute between an insurance company and a health care provider. The health care provider, as assignee of an individual injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought reimbursement for health care services provided. The insurance company raised a Mallela defense, asserting that it could withhold payment due to fraudulent incorporation of the health care provider. After a hearing, an arbitrator and the master arbitrator both found in favor of the health care provider. The insurance company appealed, arguing that the standard of proof applied was incorrect and that the arbitrator's determination was irrational. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, and also remanded for a determination of the health care provider's reasonable attorney's fees for the appeal. The court clarified that Supreme Court has authority to award attorneys fees in appeals from master arbitration awards, as provided by relevant laws and regulations.