No-Fault Case Law
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.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Jong Won Yom (2025 NY Slip Op 06706)
December 3, 2025
The court considered the proceeding initiated by American Transit Insurance Company seeking to vacate a master arbitration award favoring Jong Won Yom. The main issues included the validity of the arbitration award and Yom's request for additional attorney's fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4). The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award and granted Yom an additional attorney's fee of $600, which was contested on appeal. Ultimately, the Appellate Division upheld the lower court's decision, affirming the award without requiring a hearing, citing Yom's failure to provide sufficient support for a larger fee request and emphasizing the legislative intent for expeditious resolution of no-fault claims.
Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Picone (2025 NY Slip Op 06604)
November 26, 2025
In this case, the court considered the defendant's claim for no-fault lost wage benefits following an arbitration award in his favor, as well as his counterclaims for breach of contract and unfair claims settlement practices against the plaintiff, an insurance company. The main issues addressed included whether the plaintiff was liable for the claimed lost wages and whether the counterclaims were valid. The court found that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant's tax returns and deposition testimony contained inconsistencies that undermined his claims for lost wages. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment, declaring that the plaintiff was not liable for payment of any lost wages and dismissing the defendant's counterclaims, including that of unfair claims settlement practices, due to lack of a private right of action under the relevant statute.
Town RX Inc. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51853(U))
November 24, 2025
In the case, the court considered the issue of whether the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements for no-fault insurance benefits by not appearing at scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The defendant insurer successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff did not attend these EUOs, supported by affidavits detailing their standard mailing practices for scheduling notices. The court determined that the evidence presented by the defendant was sufficient to establish that proper notice was given to the plaintiff regarding the EUOs. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.
Government Employees Ins. Co. v Mayzenberg (2025 NY Slip Op 06527)
November 24, 2025
The court considered whether a regulation from the Department of Financial Services (DFS) allows insurers to deny a healthcare provider's no-fault benefits claim based on allegations of professional misconduct, specifically related to paying for patient referrals. The key issue centered on whether such misconduct constituted a failure to meet a foundational licensing requirement necessary for delivering healthcare services. The court found that DFS's interpretation of the regulation restricts insurers from denying claims based on claims of misconduct unless the misconduct involves relinquishing control to an unlicensed party. This interpretation aligns with the no-fault statutory framework, which aims to ensure prompt compensation for accident victims and reduce court burdens. Ultimately, the court held that insurers cannot deny benefits under these circumstances, answering the certified question in the negative.