No-Fault Case Law
LV Med. Diagnostic Servs., P.C. v Safe Auto Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51974(U))
December 5, 2025
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.
Prompt Med. Group, Inc. v Foremost Signature Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51977(U))
December 5, 2025
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.
Medical Supply of NY Servs., Inc. v Foremost Signature Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51978(U))
December 5, 2025
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.
Prompt Med. Group, Inc. v Foremost Signature Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51979(U))
December 5, 2025
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.
Medical Supply of NY Servs., Inc. v Foremost Signature Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51980(U))
December 5, 2025
The court considered the circumstances surrounding an insurance policy cancellation for a vehicle allegedly involved in a no-fault accident on November 4, 2022. The defendant, Foremost Signature Insurance Company, sought summary judgment based on the assertion that the insurance coverage was not in effect, as the policy had been canceled on October 24, 2022. The main issue was whether the plaintiff, Medical Supply of NY Services, Inc., could recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits despite the cancellation of the insurance policy before the accident occurred. The court ultimately held that the order dismissing the complaint was reversed, denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment, indicating that there were unresolved issues regarding the applicability of coverage at the time of the accident.
Pyramid Care, P.T., P.C. v Safe Auto Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51981(U))
December 5, 2025
The court considered relevant facts regarding the personal jurisdiction of Safe Auto Insurance Company, an Ohio-based entity, in a case where Pyramid Care, P.T., P.C. sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Safe Auto contended that the Civil Court lacked personal jurisdiction because it was not authorized to operate in New York, had not filed the necessary insurance compliance statements, and had not been properly served with the summons and complaint. The court focused primarily on the lack of admissible evidence provided by Safe Auto to support its jurisdictional claims, finding deficiencies in the affidavit and insurance policy submissions. The main issue decided was whether the Civil Court had personal jurisdiction over Safe Auto, with the court concluding that material factual disputes existed and that the jurisdictional determination needed to proceed to trial. As a result, the court affirmed the denial of Safe Auto's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.
GC Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51982(U))
December 5, 2025
In this case, the court considered the facts surrounding the appellant's motion for summary judgment based on the respondent's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) related to first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court initially found that while the defendant had established proper mailing of EUO scheduling letters, the attorney's affirmation regarding the plaintiff's failure to appear was insufficient due to the significant delay between the supposed no-shows and the affirmation's execution. On appeal, the court reviewed the application of a precedent case that suggested an attorney's affirmation could demonstrate non-appearance. The main issues decided included whether the attorney's affirmation was credible despite the time gap and whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. Ultimately, the appellate court reversed the previous decision, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Integrated Medicine of S.I., P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 06703)
December 3, 2025
The court considered the details of a master arbitration award from November 1, 2022, which had been ruled in favor of Integrated Medicine of S.I., P.C., and the subsequent proceedings initiated by American Transit Insurance Company to vacate this award. The primary issues addressed included whether to confirm the arbitration award and the appropriate amount of attorney's fees to be awarded under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4). The court decided to confirm the arbitration award and granted Integrated Medicine an additional attorney's fee of $220. The holding affirmed that the Supreme Court acted within its discretion in awarding the attorney's fee without a hearing due to Integrated Medicine's failure to support its claim with necessary documentation. In conclusion, the court upheld the judgment and the awarded fees, finding the remaining contentions by Integrated Medicine either meritless or academic.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v YD Med. Servs., P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 06704)
December 3, 2025
In this case, the court examined a proceeding initiated by American Transit Insurance Company to vacate a master arbitration award that had been issued in favor of YD Medical Services, P.C. The main issues addressed included whether the arbitration award should be confirmed and the amount of an additional attorney's fee YD Medical was entitled to receive under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4). The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award and granted YD Medical an additional attorney's fee of $220. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that the Supreme Court acted within its discretion in determining the attorney's fee without a hearing, particularly since YD Medical had not sufficiently detailed the nature of the services rendered or requested a hearing on the matter. The court further stated that YD Medical's remaining arguments were either meritless or irrelevant.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Jong Won Yom (2025 NY Slip Op 06705)
December 3, 2025
In this case, the court considered the appeal of Jong Won Yom against a judgment that addressed an arbitration award related to no-fault insurance benefits. The main issues included whether the Supreme Court acted within its discretion in awarding Yom an additional attorney's fee of $220 without conducting a hearing and whether Yom adequately supported his entitlement to a larger fee. The court determined that Yom's failure to submit sufficient documentation regarding the services rendered and to request a hearing limited the court's obligation to conduct one. Ultimately, the holding confirmed the lower court’s decision to grant Yom the additional attorney's fee of $220 as reasonable under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4), affirming the judgment with costs.