No-Fault Case Law

In this case, the court considered relevant facts surrounding an action initiated by a medical supply company seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits after an accident involving a vehicle. The main issue addressed was whether the defendant's insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident, given that the policy had been cancelled prior to the incident. The Civil Court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, asserting there was no coverage for the vehicle involved because the policy was cancelled on October 24, 2022, while the accident occurred on November 4, 2022. However, upon appeal, the Appellate Term reversed this decision, siding with the appellant and denying the summary judgment sought by the insurance company. The court's holding emphasized the need for further examination of the circumstances surrounding the insurance coverage and its cancellation.

In this case, the court considered whether there was valid insurance coverage for a vehicle involved in a no-fault accident that occurred on November 4, 2022, given that the insurance policy had been cancelled two weeks prior, on October 24, 2022. The main issue decided was whether the insurance company was liable for first-party no-fault benefits despite the cancellation of the policy. The court held that the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was improperly granted because the plaintiff's arguments regarding the insurance coverage warranted further examination. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the defendant's summary judgment motion was denied.

In this case, the court considered the facts surrounding an automobile accident on November 4, 2022, involving a vehicle allegedly insured by Foremost Signature Insurance Company. The main issue was whether the insurance policy was in effect at the time of the accident, as the defendant contended that it had been canceled two weeks prior, on October 24, 2022. The court ultimately decided that summary judgment dismissing the complaint was inappropriate because there was insufficient evidence to prove the insurance policy was indeed canceled at the time of the accident. Consequently, the appellate ruling reversed the lower court's order, denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and reinstating the case for further proceedings.

In this case, the court considered the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint based on a lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting that as an Ohio company not authorized to do business in New York, it had not agreed to comply with New York insurance requirements and was improperly served. The Civil Court found that the defendant failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence to support its claims, particularly noting the deficiencies in the defendant's submissions, including an unaccredited affidavit and a lack of certification for the insurance policy documents. The main issues decided included whether the defendant was doing business in New York and whether personal jurisdiction was properly established. The court ultimately held that material factual issues existed regarding the defendant's business activities in New York, allowing the case to proceed to trial on the personal jurisdiction issue. The order denying the motion to dismiss was affirmed, with no merit found in the defendant's remaining arguments.

The court considered the issue of whether the plaintiff, a chiropractic provider, failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) related to a claim for assigned no-fault benefits. The defendant, State Farm, argued that the plaintiff’s non-appearance justified the dismissal of the complaint, citing an affirmation from its attorney as evidence of the failure to appear. Initially, the Civil Court had denied summary judgment for the defendant due to the attorney's affirmation being deemed insufficient because it was executed three years after the alleged no-show. However, upon renewal of its motion, the Appellate Term ruled that the attorney's affirmation was credible and sufficient to demonstrate the plaintiff's failure to appear. Ultimately, the court reversed the Civil Court’s order and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

In this case, the court considered the facts surrounding a claim by a healthcare provider, Balanced Channels Acupuncture, for no-fault benefits on behalf of its assignor, Collin Dasilva. The primary issue was whether the defendant, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, had issued an insurance policy that would entitle the assignor to receive those benefits. The court found that the affidavit submitted by a claims adjuster was inadequate to establish USAA's lack of coverage, as it did not demonstrate the adjuster's employment with the defendant or provide evidence of a search of defendant’s records. As a result, the court held that the defendant had failed to meet its burden for summary judgment, and thus, the order granting the defendant's motion was reversed, allowing the complaint to proceed.

The court considered the defendant's claims that the Civil Court lacked personal jurisdiction due to the defendant being an Ohio company not authorized to do business in New York, the exhaustion of the insurance policy limit before the plaintiff's claims arose, and improper service of the summons and complaint. The main issues decided included the adequacy of the defendant’s proof regarding its business status in New York and the validity of the service of process. The court found that the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its motion to dismiss, as the affidavit from the director of claims lacked a certificate of conformity, and other submitted documents were not properly certified. The court held that issues of material fact existed regarding the defendant's business operations in New York, leading to the conclusion that the question of personal jurisdiction would be resolved at trial. Thus, the court affirmed the order denying the motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction.

The court considered that the plaintiff, Prompt Medical Group, sought to recover no-fault benefits for a vehicle accident which allegedly involved a vehicle insured by the defendant, Foremost Signature Insurance Company. The main issue was whether the insurance policy was effectively canceled prior to the accident, as the defendant claimed it was canceled on October 24, 2022, while the accident occurred on November 4, 2022. The court found that the defendant did not provide sufficient admissible proof of having notified the insured of the cancellation in compliance with applicable law, specifically Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a). Additionally, it noted that the plaintiff's assignor was not listed as a named insured or a member of the insured’s household, thus raising doubts about the effectiveness of the cancellation regarding the assignor. Ultimately, the court reversed the lower court's order and denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the complaint to proceed.

In this case, the court considered relevant facts surrounding an insurance dispute related to a vehicle accident that allegedly occurred on November 4, 2022. The main issue was whether the insurance policy for the vehicle involved in the accident was still valid at the time of the incident, as the defendant claimed the policy had been canceled on October 24, 2022. The Civil Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint based on the alleged lack of coverage. However, upon appeal, the Appellate Term reversed the lower court's order, denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that there were sufficient grounds to question the validity of the cancellation, allowing the provider's claim for no-fault benefits to proceed.

The court considered that Prompt Medical Group, Inc. sought to recover first-party no-fault benefits assigned from Philippe F. Polidor following a vehicle accident on November 4, 2022. The central issue was whether the vehicle involved was covered by insurance at the time of the accident, as the defendant, Foremost Signature Insurance Company, argued that the insurance policy was canceled on October 24, 2022, before the incident. The Civil Court initially granted summary judgment favoring the defendant, dismissing the complaint on those grounds. Upon appeal, the Appellate Term reversed the lower court's order, indicating that the evidence regarding the insurance coverage was insufficient to warrant summary judgment for the defendant, thereby denying the branch of the motion seeking dismissal.