You are here: / / Insurance Company’s Failure to Submit Second Request for Verification o...

Insurance Company’s Failure to Submit Second Request for Verification of No-Fault Claim Precluded Tolling of 30-Day Payment Period

The Second Department determined that defendant insurance company’s failure to issue a second request for verification to the hospital which had submitted a no-fault claim precluded the insurance company from asserting the hospital’s failure to reply to the request for verification as a basis for not paying the claim within 30 days:

Upon the hospital’s failure to timely comply with the defendant’s initial request for verification within “30 calendar days after the original request [for verification]” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b]), the defendant was under a regulatory duty to issue a second request for verification within 10 days after the expiration of that 30-day period (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b]…). In the absence of any such second request for verification, there is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the 30-day period within which it had to pay, deny, or request verification of the claim had been extended. The defendant “failed to submit any evidence that it mailed a second or follow-up request for verification at the end of the 30-day period subsequent to [its] mailing [of] the initial request for verification”… . Westchester Med Ctr v Allstate Ins Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 08616, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

You might also like
INJURY FROM STEPPING INTO AN OPENING THAT IS NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR A PERSON TO FALL THROUGH IS NOT COVERED BY LABOR 240 (1) OR 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).
AT THE FORECLOSURE TRIAL, THE BANK DEMONSTRATED THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS SENT TO DEFENDANT BY CERTIFIED MAIL BUT FAILED TO PROVE THE NOTICE WAS ALSO SENT BY REGULAR MAIL; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
A Three-and-a-Half-Foot Fall from a Railing to a Raised Platform Was Covered by Labor Law 240(1)–Elements of Labor Law 240(1), 200 and 246(1) Causes of Action Explained—Failure to State (in the Pleadings) the Particular Industrial Code Provision Alleged to Have Been Violated Was Not Fatal to the Labor Law 246(1) Cause of Action—Belated Identification of the Code Provision Did Not Prejudice Defendant
BECAUSE THE STATE, NOT THE TOWN, OWNS THE LAND BENEATH THE LAKE, THE TOWN DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO BRING CRIMINAL CHARGES BASED UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS; THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND AND PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION; BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS TERMINATED IN PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN SEPARATION AGREEMENT CONSTITUTED AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY.
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED IN THE MOTION PAPERS, INCLUDING THE APPLICATION OF THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS, INCLUDING CERTIFIED CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA AND THE DEPOSITION OF A NONPARTY, RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF ICE AND THE DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF IT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

In a Neglect Proceeding, the Review of Sealed Documents by the Evaluating Psychologist... “Concerted Action Liability” Causes of Action Dismissed/No Evidence Media...