No-Fault Case Law

The relevant facts considered by the court were that Rockaway Medical & Diagnostic, P.C. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. The main issue decided was whether State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there was an issue of fact as to whether the injuries sustained by plaintiff's assignor arose from an insured incident. The holding of the case was that the affidavit submitted by defendant's investigator was sufficient to demonstrate a "founded belief that the alleged injuries do not arise out of an insured incident", thus defendant demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a lack of coverage, and therefore plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment.

The court considered the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award in a case involving a dispute over first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether there was a rational basis for the master arbitrator's determination upholding the arbitrator's award, which denied the petitioner's claims for benefits. The court found a rational basis for the master arbitrator's determination and upheld the denial of the petitioner's claims. The holding of the case was that the judgment was modified to add a provision confirming the master arbitrator's award, and as modified, it was affirmed without costs. The court also stated that the lower court properly denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award, and pursuant to CPLR 7511 (e), was required to confirm the award.

The court in this case considered whether three MRIs performed on an automobile accident victim were eligible for first-party no-fault benefits. The insurance company, the defendant, denied the claims based on a low-impact study and the affidavit of an engineer. The main issue was whether the low-impact study was sufficient to deny summary judgment in a first-party no-fault action, where the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment. The court ruled that the low-impact study and the engineer's affidavit were not sufficient, as they were conducted without a medical file review or an independent assessment of the injuries. The court held that the insurance company failed to provide medical evidence to demonstrate that the claimed injuries had no nexus to the accident, and therefore, summary judgment was awarded to the plaintiff medical provider.

The main issue in this case was whether the petitioner, Health & Endurance Medical, P.C., was entitled to direct payment of no-fault insurance benefits as a "provider of health care services" under the relevant regulations. After arbitration, it was determined that HEM was not a provider of health care services and, therefore, not entitled to direct payment of the benefits. The Supreme Court denied HEM's petition to vacate the award of the master arbitrator. However, the Appellate Division reversed the decision and vacated the awards of the master arbitrator and arbitrator, remitting the matter to the arbitrator for further proceedings. It was determined that the arbitrator had improperly raised the issue of the applicability of the regulations, and had not ruled on the only issue raised by the respondent, Deerbrook, relating to the need for the services in question.

The main issues in this case were a denial of a claim for first-party no-fault benefits by an insurance company, and a petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award upholding the denial. The court considered the rational basis for the determination of the master arbitrator in upholding the denial of benefits. The holding of the case was that there was a rational basis for the master arbitrator's determination, and the court properly denied the petition to vacate the award. However, the court also modified the judgment by confirming the master arbitrator's award, as required by the CPLR, thus affirming the denial of the first-party no-fault benefits.

The relevant facts that the court considered were that Donald Gjelaj, the plaintiff's assignor, was arrested for driving while intoxicated and was seeking no-fault benefits under his insurance policy. The defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, sent a verification request to Gjelaj seeking information about his intoxication. The plaintiff, Westchester Medical Center, then sought no-fault benefits for services it rendered to Gjelaj. The court decided that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing on its cross motion for summary judgment. The holding of the court was that although the plaintiff made a prima facie showing, the defendant failed to do so and could not establish intoxication as a matter of law and that the defendant also failed to establish that Gjelaj's alleged intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident, so the motion for summary judgment was denied.

The main issue in this case was whether New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens was entitled to recover no-fault benefits under an insurance contract. This was after a motion was granted in their favor for summary judgment on the second and third causes of action, leading to a judgment in favor of New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens against Countrywide Insurance Company. New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, but Countrywide Insurance Company submitted admissible evidence raising triable issues of fact that were not rebutted, thus its request for additional verification tolled the time within which to pay or deny the claim. The Supreme Court should have denied summary judgment as to the second cause of action. The evidence submitted by New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens in support of its motion for summary judgment on the third cause of action satisfied its burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the motion by Countrywide Insurance Company to strike pages of the appellant's brief was denied.

The court considered the master arbitrator's decision upholding the arbitrator's award, which denied the petitioner's claims for assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether there was a rational basis for the master arbitrator's determination to uphold the arbitrator's award. The holding of the court was that there was a rational basis for the master arbitrator's decision, and thus the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award was properly denied. The court also confirmed the master arbitrator's award, as required by CPLR 7511 (e).

The court considered the fact that JSI Expert Services, Inc. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits in this case. They also considered that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff's counsel, an affidavit by an employee of plaintiff, and various documents annexed to the motion. The main issue decided in this case was whether the affidavit executed by plaintiff's employee was sufficient to establish that the officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff's practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff's moving papers. The holding of the case was that the affidavit submitted by plaintiff's employee was insufficient to establish that said officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff's practices and procedures, and therefore failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment. The court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant should be granted its motion to vacate a default judgment and compel the plaintiff to accept its answer. The relevant facts considered by the court were that the defendant served an untimely answer, and more than two months later, the plaintiff sought and obtained a default judgment. The court held that the plaintiff's retention of an answer without a timely objection constituted a waiver of objection as to untimeliness, precluding the grant of a default judgment. Therefore, the vacatur of the "default" judgment was warranted, regardless of whether the defendant demonstrated a meritorious defense. The court affirmed the order without costs, ruling that the court below had properly exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment.