No-Fault Case Law

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.