No-Fault Case Law

Biotech Surgical Supply, Inc. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50118(U))

The relevant facts of the case were that Biotech Surgical Supply, Inc., as the assignee of Louise Moses, was seeking to recover first-party, no-fault benefits for a claim that arose from an accident in 1999. The case was settled in 2003, but the defendant did not pay the settlement amount. A judgment was entered in 2017, awarding plaintiff statutory no-fault interest from the date of settlement at a simple rate. The main issue decided by the court was whether the Civil Court erred in tolling the accrual of statutory no-fault interest from the date of the settlement to the date of plaintiff's motion. The court held that the Civil Court did err in tolling the accrual of interest given that the defendant did not demonstrate that plaintiff had prevented them in any way from paying the settlement amount. The holding of the case was that the judgment was reversed, the portion of the order that tolled the accrual of statutory no-fault interest was vacated, and the matter was remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a new judgment in accordance with the decision and order.
Read More

Metro Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50119(U))

The relevant facts of the case were that the plaintiff, Metro Medical Diagnostics, P.C., sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for a claim arising from an accident that occurred on January 5, 2000. The settlement amount was not paid by the defendant, and a judgment was subsequently entered on January 9, 2017, awarding the plaintiff statutory no-fault interest from the date of the settlement at a simple rate. The main issue was whether the Civil Court erred in tolling the statutory no-fault interest from the date of the settlement to the date of the original judgment. The court held that the Civil Court erred in tolling the accrual of interest from the date of the settlement to the date of the original judgment, and reversed the judgment, vacated the order that tolled the interest, and remitted the matter to the Civil Court for the entry of a new judgment in accordance with their decision and order.
Read More

New Life Acupuncture, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50120(U))

The court considered the fact that New Life Acupuncture, P.C., as the assignee of Shelton Reason, was seeking to recalculate from a simple rate to a compound rate the award of statutory no-fault interest in a judgment entered on March 22, 2017. The main issue decided was whether the no-fault interest should be calculated at a simple rate or a compound rate based on the former regulations and the date of the accident. The holding of the case was that the plaintiff's motion to recalculate the interest from a simple rate to a compound rate should have been granted, as the accident occurred prior to the effective date of the current regulations, which now provide for a simple rate of interest. It was also noted that postjudgment interest in a no-fault action is governed by Insurance Law § 5106 and its implementing regulations, not the CPLR.
Read More

Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Yao Jian Ping (2024 NY Slip Op 24033)

The relevant facts the court considered in this case include the commencement of the action by Country-Wide Insurance Company against Yao Jian Ping following an arbitration award in defendant's favor in excess of $5,000. Defendant made a motion to dismiss the action, which was initially denied and affirmed on appeal. A notice of trial was filed and granted by the court, after which additional discovery was directed. Defendant also sought to amend the answer but was denied. Finally, a nonjury trial was held, during which plaintiff's and defendant's exhibits were submitted and evidence was presented. Defendant rested with both plaintiff and defendant moving for a directed verdict in their favor, and the court reserved decision. The main issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to an adjudication de novo of a no-fault insurance claim pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106(c) following the master arbitrator's award in defendant's favor. The legal issues involved the procedural history of the case, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and whether the defendant should be allowed to amend the answer. The holding in this case was not provided in the given text.
Read More

Time to Care Pharm. Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50126(U))

The court considered the petition for an order confirming the Master Arbitration Award that affirmed the Arbitration Award below. The main issue decided was whether the Master Arbitration Award should be confirmed in favor of the petitioner, Time to Care Pharmacy Inc., against the respondent, American Transit Insurance Co. The holding of the case was that the unopposed petition for confirmation of the Master Arbitration Award was granted, and the Arbitration Award was confirmed in favor of the petitioner for specific sums, including interest, attorney fees, and arbitration filing fees. The court determined that the Master Arbitrator found that the lower arbitrator's decision was based on a review and evaluation of the record and had a rational and plausible basis in the evidence, and therefore affirmed the lower arbitration award in its entirety. The court also agreed with the findings of the Master Arbitrator and found that the record demonstrated a rational basis for the initial arbitrator's decision and that the award was justified.
Read More

Time to Care Pharm. Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50126(U))

The court considered the case of Time to Care Pharmacy Inc. v American Transit Insurance Co., in which the petitioner sought an order confirming a Master Arbitration Award that affirmed the Arbitration Award in their favor. The main issue decided was whether the Master Arbitration Award should be confirmed, affirming the lower arbitration award in favor of the petitioner. The holding of the case was that the unopposed petition for an order confirming the Master Arbitration Award was granted, as the Master Arbitrator found that the lower arbitrator's decision was based on a rational and plausible basis in the evidence and had a rational justification. The Court agreed with the Master Arbitrator's findings and determined that the record demonstrated a rational basis for the initial arbitrator's decision. Therefore, the Master Arbitration Award was confirmed in favor of the petitioner.
Read More

Matter of Lam Quan, MD, PC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 00174)

The appellate Division, First Department, considered a case where petitioner-Appellant, Lam Quan, MD, PC, attempted to vacate a master arbitrator's award that affirmed a lower arbitrator's decision, which denied the petitioner's claims against GEICO General Insurance Company. The main issue was whether there were grounds to vacate the initial arbitration award, and the court unanimously affirmed the denial of the petition, stating that the initial arbitration decision was reached in a rational manner and was not arbitrary, capricious, or incorrect as a matter of law. The court emphasized that the fact that the arbitrator followed First Department precedent rather than Second Department precedent did not warrant reversal. Additionally, the court ruled that Quan's argument regarding the wage offset and attorneys' fees were unpreserved and unavailing. The holding of the court was the affirmance of the denial of the petition, without costs.
Read More

John T. Mather Mem. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 24009)

The court in the present case considered a special proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7502 and 7510 for confirmation of a No-Fault Insurance master arbitration award in favor of John T. Mather Memorial Hospital, a medical provider, against American Transit Insurance Company. The main issues decided were whether the master arbitration award should be confirmed, whether an attorney's fee should be awarded to the petitioner, and whether the respondent was entitled to costs and disbursements. The court held that the master arbitration award in favor of the hospital was confirmed, and the hospital was awarded the principal amount, interest, attorney's fees, and return of the filing fee as determined in the arbitration hearing. The court denied the hospital's request for an attorney's fee in connection with the petition to confirm, and awarded costs and disbursements to the respondent. The court also clarified that the purpose of the Article 75 proceeding was to obtain a judgment for the hospital to levy upon the respondent's assets to enforce the award, rather than being in the nature of an appeal.
Read More

JSJ Anesthesia Pain Mgt., PLLC v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50064(U))

The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the policy limits had been exhausted and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The main issue was whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted. The holding of the court was that the order was modified to deny the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Therefore, the order was affirmed without costs.
Read More

Pain Med., PLLC v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50065(U))

The court considered an action by a medical provider to recover first-party no-fault benefits, where the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted on the ground that the policy limits had been exhausted. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted, and whether the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment should be denied. The holding of the case was that the order was modified by providing that the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied, and as so modified, the order is affirmed without costs.
Read More