You are here: / / Denial of “Defective” No-Fault Claim (on Form UB-40) Was of...

Denial of “Defective” No-Fault Claim (on Form UB-40) Was of No Effect—Failure to Respond Within 30 Days to a Subsequent “Correct” Claim (on Form NF-5) Precluded Insurer from Raising Defenses to the Claim

The Second Department determined the insurer’s denial of a defective claim was of no effect and the insurer’s failure to respond to the valid claim within 30 days precluded raising defenses to the claim:

[The insurer] contends that the 30-day period commenced when it received the Form UB-04 in December 2011, that it timely requested verification of the claim, and that, after it received the medical records, it timely denied the claim in January 2012. [the hospital] could not commence the 30-day clock anew by submitting the same claim several months later … .

We conclude that the Supreme Court erred in denying [the hospital’s] motion for summary judgment on the complaint and in granting [the insurer’s] cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Under our decision in Sound Shore [106 AD3d 157], the 30-day period for [the insurer] to pay or deny the claim did not begin to run until March 26, 2012, when [the hospital] submitted the Form NF-5, which contained the information needed. Because [the insurer] did not pay or deny the claim within 30 days thereafter, it was precluded from raising defenses. In other words, the defective “claim” submitted in December 2011 did not start the 30-day clock, so [the insurer’s] denial in January 2012 was of no effect … . Mount Sinai Hosp v New York Cent Mut Fire Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 05779, 2nd Dept 8-13-14

 

You might also like
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ (ZBA’S) DENIAL OF A LOT-SIZE VARIANCE CONFLICTED WITH A PRIOR RULING BASED ON SIMILAR FACTS; THEREFORE THE ZBA WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A FACTUAL BASIS FOR ITS DECISION; THE DECISION, WHICH WAS SUPPORTED ONLY BY COMMUNITY OPPOSITION, WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION THE BANK MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WHICH REQUIRES PROOF PAPERS WERE FILED WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT; HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF WHEN THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS MAILED, SO THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
MORTGAGE WAS AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE IT DESCRIBED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY A SINGLE LOT NUMBER AND BY METES AND BOUNDS WHICH ENCOMPASSED TWO LOTS, QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DOCTORS WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WERE NOT EMPLOYED BY THE HOSPITAL, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THEY HAD APPARENT OR OSTENSIBLE AGENCY RENDERING THE HOSPITAL VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ANY MALPRACTICE COMMITTED BY THEM (SECOND DEPT).
Nursing License Not Marital Property/Criteria Explained
Board of Commissioner’s Rejection of Hearing Officer’s Award of Supplemental Benefits Was Supported by Substantial Evidence—“Substantial Evidence” Defined and Review Criteria Explained
Plaintiff Could Not Rely On Code Provisions Not Mentioned in Plaintiff’s Bill of Particulars to Defeat Summary Judgment
Dismissal for Failure to State a Cause of Action Is Not Given Res Judicata Effect

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Move to Sever Unrelated Counts of Indictment Constituted Ineffective... Insufficient Proof of an Agreement to Assume a Mortgage at the Time Deed Tr...