No-Fault Case Law
Omphil Care, Inc. v Pearl Holding Group Managing Gen. Agent for Ocean Harbor Cas. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50946(U))
August 14, 2020
The court considered the fact that the vehicle in question was insured by the defendant under a Florida automobile insurance policy. An investigation revealed that the insured did not reside at the Florida address listed on the insurance application, and the insured vehicle was not being garaged in Florida for the stated period. As a result, the insurance company rescinded the policy ab initio based on the applicant's misrepresentations in procuring the policy, as permitted by Florida law. The main issue decided was whether the insurance policy was correctly rescinded under Florida law, and the court held that the insurance company had established, prima facie, that it voided the policy ab initio in accordance with Florida law. The court also declined to consider plaintiff's remaining arguments as they were raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore, the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed.
Psychmetrics Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50944(U))
August 14, 2020
The relevant facts of the case involve Psychmetrics Medical, P.C., as an assignee of Dmitriy Morozov, appealing against State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. The main issue in this case was whether the delay in prosecuting the action by the plaintiff warranted the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of laches. The Court reversed the decision of the Civil Court of New York, which had granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches. The Court found that the delay in prosecuting the action did not warrant dismissal on the ground of laches, and remitted the matter to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of the defendant's motion. The holding of the case was that the branch of the defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches was denied, and the matter was remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of the defendant's motion.
A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50943(U))
August 14, 2020
The main issue in this case was whether the branch of defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches should be granted. The court considered the delay in prosecuting the action and whether this delay warranted the dismissal of the complaint. The court ultimately held that the branch of defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of defendant's motion. The court reversed the order of the Civil Court and found that the remaining branches of the motion were moot.
A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50942(U))
August 14, 2020
The court considered a motion by the defendant to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches due to the plaintiff's delay in prosecuting the action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided by the court was whether the delay in prosecution by the plaintiff warranted the dismissal of the complaint based on laches. The holding of the court was that the branch of the defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches was denied, and the matter was remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of the defendant's motion. The court reversed the order and found that the remaining branches of the motion were moot, and remitted the case back to the Civil Court for further determination.
Psychmetrics Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50941(U))
August 14, 2020
The court considered a case in which Psychmetrics Medical, as the assignee of Vera Morozova, appealed an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York that granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of laches, based on the delay in prosecuting the action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue was whether the delay in prosecuting the action constituted laches and justified the dismissal of the complaint. The court held that the order was reversed, the branch of the defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches was denied, and the matter was remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of the defendant's motion. The decision was based on the reasoning in a previous case, Rockaway Med. & Diagnostic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., and was decided by the three judges unanimously.
Psychmetrics Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50940(U))
August 14, 2020
The relevant facts of the case were that Psychmetrics Medical, P.C. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. State Farm moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches, based on Psychmetrics's delay in prosecuting the action. The Civil Court granted this branch of State Farm's motion and found that the remaining branches of the motion were moot. The main issue that was decided was whether the complaint should be dismissed on the ground of laches. The holding of the court was that the order was reversed, the branch of State Farm's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches was denied, and the matter was remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of State Farm's motion.
Doctors United Inc. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50909(U))
August 11, 2020
The court considered the fact that plaintiff, Doctors United Inc., filed a lawsuit seeking overdue no-fault benefits from defendant, Hereford Insurance Company, for medical services rendered to Keith Davis. Defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that plaintiff never billed defendant for the services. Plaintiff argued that the motion was untimely and that defendant had not paid or denied the bills. The court dismissed defendant's motion as untimely and declined to grant plaintiff summary judgment due to lack of evidence of billing and mailing of the bills. The main issues decided were whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment was untimely and whether there was sufficient evidence of billing and mailing of the bills. The holding was that defendant's motion for summary judgment was dismissed as untimely and plaintiff's request for summary judgment was also denied.
Milky Way Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50935(U))
August 7, 2020
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court that granted the defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment and to compel the plaintiff to accept the defendant's answer. The main issue decided was whether the defendant provided a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action, as required by CPLR 5015(a)(1). The court held that the defendant's affidavit was insufficient to establish an excusable default and, as a result, reversed the order and denied the branches of the defendant's motion that sought to vacate the default judgment and to compel the plaintiff to accept the defendant's answer.
BS Kings County Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 20200)
August 7, 2020
The court had to determine whether further pretrial discovery was warranted on the defendant's Mallela defense, which involved allegations of unlicensed individuals receiving a disproportionate share of the corporation's revenue, and whether the plaintiff intentionally failed to provide relevant information. The defendant had requested to strike the plaintiff's notice of trial and dismiss the complaint on these grounds, but the court found that the plaintiff did not engage in willful, contumacious, or bad faith conduct, so their complaint would not be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3126. However, the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's notice of trial was granted due to the court's finding that the defendant was entitled to further relevant discovery. The court also found that the plaintiff had not meaningfully responded to the defendant's interrogatories, so the defendant's motion to compel in part, as to matters that were material and necessary to the prosecution of the action, was also granted.
Ameriprise Ins. Co. v Kim (2020 NY Slip Op 04286)
July 29, 2020
The case involved Ameriprise Insurance Company filing a lawsuit against various defendants for a judgment declaring that it has no duty to indemnify the defendants for any claims arising out of a particular accident. The accident in question involved the defendant Roy Kim's vehicle being involved in a hit-and-run, and the plaintiff concluded that the claims were not covered under the policy. The defendants failed to appear or answer the complaint, and the plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment. The main issue was whether the plaintiff had the right to the declarations sought. The court held that while the plaintiff submitted proof of proper service and the defendants' default, the submissions failed to establish its right to the declarations sought, so the denial of the motion was affirmed.