Blog

Another ALROF citingJuly 6, 2014

SP Chiropractic, P.C. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50952(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)

Because defendant failed to submit proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff for the EUOs in question, defendant’s motion was properly denied (see Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50458[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; Bright Med. Supply Co. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51123[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).”

Seems to be the same cohorts that draw Alrof citations.  In my mind, after you lose, change the affidavits. Appealing the same losing affidavits is insane and helps nobody.  The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and to expect a different result.

Oh and do not think I for a second think Alrof is a correct statement of the law.  American Transit v. Lucas proved that wrong.  But this Court is a bit “thick” at time and unless its own precedent gets overruled,

One Response

  1. nycoolbreez says:

    ALROF is correct in the Second department bc in the second department you must issue a timely denial to preserve the right to claim a policy violation defense.
    are these unitrin cases claiming a policy violation defense or are they claiming something else

    Are all these insurers getting these unitrin decisions not defending on the BI case ? and if they are defending the BI case, is that an intellectually honest position to take before the court ?

Leave a Reply