You are here: / / Insurer Must Demonstrate Compliance with 30-Day Notice Requirement Re:...
,

Insurer Must Demonstrate Compliance with 30-Day Notice Requirement Re: an Independent Medical Examination (IME)

The First Department, over a dissent, affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff-insurer’s motion for summary judgment which argued the insurer was not obligated to provide no-fault insurance coverage because defendant did not appear for a scheduled independent medical examination (IME).  In order to be entitled to summary judgment, the insurer was required to show that it notified defendant of the IME within 30 days of the insurer’s receipt of the verification form from the defendant. Plaintiff’s papers did not state when the verification form was received by it.  Therefore, the plaintiff could not show it complied with the 30-day-notice requirement. The court noted that the issue could be determined as a matter of law and the defect could not be cured in reply papers:

“Contrary to the position taken by the dissent, the issue of whether plaintiff has failed to establish that the notices for the IMEs were timely, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(d), presents a question of law which this Court can review. Unlike the dissent, we find that plaintiff was required to submit proof of the timely notice in order to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Any belated attempt by plaintiff to cure this deficiency in its prima facie showing by submitting evidence for the first time in reply would have been improper…”. American Tr. Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06761, 1st Dept 9-15-15

 

You might also like
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PORT AUTHORITY FOR FAILING TO INSTALL FENCING TO PREVENT PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENTS FROM COMMITTING SUICIDE BY JUMPING FROM THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE (FIRST DEPT). ​
Two Asbestos Cases Properly Consolidated
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S WORK CONSTITUTED ‘ALTERING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6); ACTION AGAINST OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD PROPERLY DISMISSED, NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OF THE WORK (FIRST DEPT).
Neglect Finding Based On Single Incident Reversed.
PEOPLE CONCEDED ROBBERY THIRD SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, NO NEED FOR A NEW TRIAL, CONVICTION REDUCED (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT, IN THE PLEA COLLOQUY, SAID SHE ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE; AT THAT POINT THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE MADE SURE SHE WAS AWARE SHE WAS WAIVING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
Merger Doctrine and “As Is” Clause Did Not Bar Suit/Fraud-Based Causes of Action Did Not Duplicate Breach of Contract Cause of Action
DEFENDANT LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED RENOVATIONS TO THE APARTMENT, WHICH WAS ONCE RENT-CONTROLLED, WERE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CHARGING MARKET RENT (FIRST RENT), COMPLAINT DISMISSED BASED ON LANDLORD’S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

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

Plaintiffs Entitled to Damages Re: City’s Failure to Timely Notify Plaintiffs... Rejection of Answer Based Upon a Defective Verification Was Ineffective Because...