EUO No-Show by Patient Subject to Preclusion

I'll have a post regarding the unsurprising result in LMK later, but there's a new decision from the Appellate Division, Second Department that requires some attention.

The decision in Westchester Med. Ctr. v. Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 02589 (App. Div., 2d Dep't, 2009) has just been posted.

The decision has a few holdings. The ostensible main holding is that letters "advising the plaintiff that the processing of its claim was being held pending an investigation of the loss, which included verifying the claimant's involvement in the motor vehicle accident and conducting examinations under oath of any individuals with personal knowledge of the facts" are not valid verification requests. Id. This holding is nothing groundbreaking.

The much more interesting holding comes later: "Where, as here, the defendant's denial of liability also was based upon an alleged breach of a policy condition, to wit, the failure of the plaintiff's assignor to appear at an examination under oath, such an alleged breach does not serve to vitiate the medical provider's right to recover no fault benefits or to toll the 30-day statutory period. Rather, such denial was subject to the preclusion remedy." Id. (internal citations omitted).

So, in short, EUO no-shows by patients require timely denials. Presumably this holding also applies to other policy conditions, such as attendance at IMEs. If so, this would extinguish any hope raised by the last sentence of Fogel that such a no-show is a coverage defense because "an insurer may deny a claim retroactively to the date of loss for a claimant's failure to attend IMEs." Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 A.D.3d 720 (2d Dep't, 2006). Clearly, now, such defenses are not based upon a lack of coverage, and must be denied within 30 days. Presumably, timely and valid requests for EUOs and IMEs still toll the 30 days, but the eventual denial must be timely, as well. So, whatever a "retroactive" denial mentioned in Fogel is, it's still something that must be timely.

MVAIC & Qualified Persons

Judge Noach Dear's decision in Kipor Medicine P.C. v. MVAIC, 2009 NY Slip Op 29085 (Civ. Ct., Kings Cty., 2009) was published today on the Slip Opinion site. This was published as a Decision of Interest in the New York Law Journal last week and will be published in the official Miscellaneous Reports.

As noted in the version published in the Law Journal, I handled this trial of counsel to the Law Offices of Bruce Newborough for Plaintiff.

In the case, MVAIC alleged that it had never received proof of the assignor's residency in New York and that, therefore, the assignor was not a "qualified person" under Insurance Law § 5202(b). As noted by the Court, however, the definition of "qualified person" is not limited to New York residents. Moreover, the fact that MVAIC had not received proof of residency was not sufficient proof that the assignor did not meet the definition of a "qualified person." MVAIC likewise submitted no other proof to demonstrate that the assignor was not qualified.

Timeliness of EUO Requests

This morning brings us the Appellate Term, 2d Department's decision in Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v. New York Central Mutual Insurance Company, 2009 NYSlipOp 50224(U) (App. Term, 2d Dep't, 2009).

In a summary judgment motion, "defendant asserted that it timely denied plaintiff's claims based on plaintiff's owner's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs)." Id. However, the Appellate Term found that "defendant failed to timely request the EUO after receiving plaintiff's bills." Id. As a result, they held that "defendant is precluded from, inter alia, relying upon plaintiff's failure to appear at an EUO as a defense to this action." Id.

The App. Term has thus established a sharp contrast between EUO requests and IMEs. As the App. Div. held in Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 A.D.3d 720 (2d Dep't, 2006), "an insurer may deny a claim retroactively to the date of loss for a claimant's failure to attend IMEs when, and as often as, the insurer may reasonably require." (Internal quotation marks omitted). Such retroactive denial is not available for EUOs that are not requested under the verification time frames, and a failure to attend untimely-requested EUOs is apparently not a coverage issue.

LMK Update

The newly-shaven David M. Gottlieb, Esq. has a great post over at No-Fault Paradise about the oral arguments before in the Court of Appeals in LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 46 A.D.3d 1290 (3d Dep't, 2007)

Based on David's post, both State Farm/Rivkin Radler and the Insurance Dep't. appear to be in The Twilight Zone. When it comes to interest, the argument is that providers should file suit immediately once a claim is denied and/or overdue. When it comes to attorney's fees, however, providers should apparently wait until all treatment is finished to consolidate all bills into a single suit to avoid exhausting the attorney's fees.

And, really, let's be honest: the concept of "exhaustion" of attorney's fees is just made up. They invented it out of nowhere for this litigation. Just look at the provisions concerning attorney's fees in the Regs:

11 NYCRR § 65-4.6(b)(1) provides that, in a specific scenario, "[i]f the resolved claim was initially denied, the attorney’s fee shall be $80." § 65-4.6(b)(2) provides "[i]f the resolved claim was overdue but not denied, the attorney’s fee shall not exceed..." The word "claim" in these provisions only makes sense if a claim is an individual bill. Otherwise, each "claim" could have a mixture of bills that were denied and not denied, and these provisions would write themselves out of existence.

Moreover, § 65-4.6(e) provides that "[f]or all other disputes subject to arbitration, subject to the provisions of subdivisions (a) and (c) of this section, the attorney’s fee shall be limited as follows: 20 percent of the amount of first-party benefits, plus interest thereon, awarded by the arbitrator or court, subject to a maximum fee of $850." Thus, at a minimum, each time a court or arbitrator resolves a matter and grants payment to the provider, there is a maximum of $850. There is no "coverage limit" of $850 in attorneys per patient, per provider. This appears nowhere in the Insurance Law, the Mandatory PIP Endorsement, or anywhere else in the Regs.

It is disappointing, but not surprising, that a carrier would attempt to fabricate a new category of coverage limit where none actually exists.

Fraud in the Procurement, Part 2

The Appellate Division, 4th Department has issued a decision today that is relevant to my post last week regarding the defense of fraudulent procurement.

At the end of that post, I noted that "procurement is fraudulent where there are material misrepresentations and, had the carrier had known the truth, the policy would not have otherwise been issued." I failed to give a citation for this proposition, but the 4th Department has given me a fresh case to cite to.

In Rafi v Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co., the Court holds that "in order to prevail on its affirmative defense, defendant was required to submit proof concerning its underwriting practices with respect to applicants with similar circumstances in order to meet its burden of establishing that it would not have issued the same policy had the correct information been included in the application." 2009 NYSlipOp 00905 (4th Dep't, 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Do note, though, that Rafi does not appear to concern an automobile insurance policy. As such, the reference in that decision to the policy being "void ab initio" due to material misrepresentation is inapplicable to no-fault (and other automobile insurance) litigation. That said, the definition provided in Rafi of what qualifies as a material misrepresentation made in the procurement of the policy should still apply to auto policies.

Where the misrepresentation concerns the insured's state of residence, as is typical allegation in no-fault litigation, this is presumably a simple burden for the carrier to meet. That is, where the insured lives in Queens, but procures an automobile insurance policy with the carrier by falsely stating that she lives in Pennsylvania, the carrier should easily be able to produce an affidavit from underwriting stating that the carrier would never have issued a Pennsylvania policy (which has its own set of specific provisions that comply with PA law) to a New York resident. Instead, the affidavit would presumably allege, had the carrier known the truth, the carrier would have either issued a different policy (that complied with New York law) or no policy at all.

Verification

The Appellate Term's decision in A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v. Country-Wide Ins. Co., 2008 NYSlipOp 52651(U) (App. Term, 2d Dep't, 2008) was posted today.

The decision is kind of messy, covering various issues briefly, but there's one interesting point. The Appellate Term found the following: "Since the affidavit of defendant's no-fault litigation supervisor lacks specificity to support the assertion that defendant did not receive the verification it requested, it was insufficient to establish that the verification was still outstanding and, thus, that defendant's time to pay or deny the claims was tolled."

I'm not sure what this means, and I can't find this language in prior no-fault decisions. What level of specificity is now required in a claim rep's affidavit to establish that requested verification was not received? Is it not enough for the rep to simply state that the verification was never received?

In any event, it appears that the Appellate Term has opened up a new avenue of attack on insurers' affidavits.

Excuses, Excuses

This morning brings us the Appellate Division's decision in Westchester Med. Ctr. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 00528 (App. Div., 2d Dep't, 2009).

There is nothing groundbreaking here, although it does potentially add to the insurance carriers' roster of what counts as a "reasonable excuse" for the purposes of vacating a default. Here, Hartford's "employee reasonably believed that the action had been discontinued after she advised the plaintiff's counsel's office that no-fault benefits had been exhausted, thereby demonstrating a reasonable excuse for the short period of time in which they failed either to appear or to answer the complaint." Id.

I'm not exactly sure how one could reasonably believe an action was discontinued based upon merely communicating a defense to plaintiff's counsel, especially where there does not seem to have been a stipulation of discontinuance ever executed, or even an overt communication by plaintiff's counsel that one would be forthcoming. This seems to me to fall somewhere short of being "reasonable." In any event, the vacatur of the default might still be proper, given the apparent "short" delay and, perhaps more importantly, the issue of policy exhaustion.

Footnote: after having vacated the default, the Supreme Court ordered that the matter be transferred to the District Court ("325(d)-ing" the case, in the parlance), as the damages failed to meet the minimum required for Supreme Court jurisdiction.

Fraud in the Procurement

Today, we turn to a fundamental aspect of New York's insurance laws. The basic question is: can an insurance carrier cancel a New York automobile insurance policy retroactively? The basic answer is: no. As we'll see, the legal acrobatics involved in getting to that answer have an important impact on no-fault litigation.

Vehicle and Traffic Law ("VTL") § 313(1)(a) provides that "[n]o contract of insurance…shall be terminated by cancellation by the insurer until at least twenty days after mailing to the named insured at the address shown on the policy a notice of termination..."

Thus, "[i]t has long been recognized that this provision supplants an insurance carrier's common-law right to cancel a contract of insurance retroactively on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, and mandates that the cancellation of a contract pursuant to its provisions may only be effected prospectively." Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. McClellan, 127 A.D.2d 767, 769 (2d Dep’t, 1987). See also A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Commercial Mut. Ins. Co., 12 Misc.3d 8 (App. Term, 2d Dep’t, 2006).

Even where there is an allegation that fraud was committed in the procurement of the insurance policy, "Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 places the burden on the insurer to discover any fraud before issuing the policy, or as soon as possible thereafter, and protects innocent third parties who may be injured due to the insured’s negligence." Insurance Co. of North America v. Kaplun, 274 A.D.2d 293, 298 (2d Dep’t, 2000). Thus, where a carrier has failed to properly cancel an insurance policy in accordance with VTL § 313 prior to an accident, the carrier "is responsible to any innocent third parties injured in the accident, despite the proof adduced...that [the insured] obtained the policy by misrepresentations." Id.

Nevertheless, "[w]hen the insured brings an action to recover benefits under a policy, the insurance carrier may assert as an affirmative defense that the insured's misrepresentations and/or fraud in obtaining the policy precludes any recovery by the insured." Id. at 298-299.

In no-fault matters, medical providers who treat patients through an assignment of benefits do not qualify as "innocent third parties" for this purpose. See A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Commercial Mut. Ins. Co., supra.

However, in order to assert such a defense in a no-fault matter, the carrier must present "evidence that plaintiffs' assignors participated in the fraudulent scheme." D.A.V. Chiropractic, P.C. v. GEICO Indem. Co., 21 Misc.3d 138(A) (App. Term, 2d Dep’t, 2008). Where the carrier fails to demonstrate that the assignor was a party to the fraudulent procurement, the carrier fails to even create a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat a provider’s motion for summary judgment, no less satisfy the burden for the carrier’s own motion for summary judgment. Id.

For the purposes of typical no-fault litigation, either on a motion or at trial, the core issue of this defense will be whether the carrier has submitted sufficient admissible evidence to demonstrate that the assignor was a party to a scheme to fraudulently procure an insurance policy. The procurement is fraudulent where there are material misrepresentations and, had the carrier had known the truth, the policy would not have otherwise been issued.

Happy Holidays

Thanks for all the kind feedback on my last post. One of my goals for 2009 is to actually dedicate some time to reviving this, so wish me luck.

Happy and healthy holidays to everyone. I hope you made the most of the office holiday parties...

Appealing, to Infinity and Beyond

Earlier this week, the Appellate Division, 2d Department, granted defendant's leave to appeal from the decision of the Appellate Term in Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v Eveready Ins. Co., 21 Misc.3d 1 (App. Term, 2d Dep't, 2008).

You'll recall that this decision involved, inter alia, a question as to whether a follow-up verification request done only 27 days after the first request is proper. You'll also further note that the No-Fault Regulations, as per 11 NYCRR § 65-3.6(b), require that a follow-up request be made between 30 to 40 days following the initial request: "At a minimum, if any requested verifications has not been supplied to the insurer 30 calendar days after the original request, the insurer shall, within 10 calendar days, follow up with the party from whom the verification was requested..."

Presumably, the appeal is intended to deal with this issue, and particularly the differing interpretations offered by the majority and the dissent concerning New York & Presbyterian Hosp. v. American Transit Ins. Co., 287 A.D.2d 699 (2d Dep't, 2001). In sum, a majority of the Appellate Term (Pesce and Steinhardt, in particular) in Infinity Health Prods. found that the Am. Transit decision "does not permit defendant to disregard the regulation governing the timing of a follow-up request for verification."

Justice Golia, ever a contrarian, dissented in Infinity Health Prods. and opined that in Am. Transit, the Appellate Division found that an early follow-up verification request (27 days later, not 30-40) was proper.

I think Golia missed the mark this time. It appears to me that the issue of the follow-up request's earliness was simply not litigated. The following sentence makes this clear to me: "Here, the defendant timely requested additional verification of the claim from the respondent by letter dated October 5, 1999, and when such verification was not received within 30 days, it sent a timely follow-up letter dated November 1, 1999." 287 A.D.2d at 700. This sentence makes no sense, as November 1, 1999 is obviously less than 30 days from October 5, 1999. Since 30 days had not elapsed, neither the Court nor American Transit could properly come to the conclusion that the "verification was not received within 30 days."

The only way the Appellate Division can get away with making such illogical statements is that they are limited to what issues are actually being litigated and have been preserved for appeal. The plaintiff in the case may not have ever, either before the Supreme Court or the Appellate Division, raised the issue of the follow-up request being too early. Indeed, Golia's states in his Infinity Health Prods. dissent that the issue was never raised by the parties in Am. Transit. 21 Misc.3d at 5. If so, then the App. Div. really had no place raising this issue sua sponte, and so it is no surprise that they didn't.

In short, the effect of early follow-up verification requests was never litigated in New York & Presbyterian Hosp. v. American Transit Ins. Co. The Appellate Term was thus not bound by this "precedent" in deciding Infinity Health Prods., and, in my opinion, the majority came to the proper conclusion upon doing so. For whatever reason, Justice Golia chose to act as if the Am. Transit is binding, but this is entirely illusory.

There's simply no need to second-guess the fact that the Insurance Department put an explicit timeframe on follow-up verification requests. Under the Regulations, they must be made from 30 to 40 days after the first request, assuming the verification was never received. A failure to abide by the timeframe on the side of lateness should have the same effect as being too early: a waiver of the request. There's no logical reason that a violation in one direction should be treated differently than a violation in the other direction.

Let's hope that the Appellate Division uses this opportunity to give effect to the Regulations as written and clear up a piece of outdated and misunderstood case law.

--

P.S. My thanks to David Barshay, Esq., for shaming me into coming out of blogging retirement every once in a while.