Point of Health Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51724(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
Five bucks says I am going to see this argument again in one of the oppositions sitting on my desk. Another five bucks says I will see it again next month…and the month after that…..etc. I mean I still see Contemporary v. Geico cited as if it still represents good law. So I digress.
Anyway, see below:
“The Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion, finding that defendant had failed to specify the dates on which its denials were mailed.”
“Contrary to the conclusion of the Civil Court, the affidavit of defendant’s claims division employee was sufficient to establish that the relevant denial of claim forms had been timely mailed in accordance with defendant’s standard office practices and procedures”
I applaud Geico because this rationale for denying summary judgment motions is one that comes up frequently, and is completely incorrect on the law.
One Response
That is so disgusting. Here is the gist of these ridiculous affidavits: “It was timely mailed because that is what we do. We don’t know when it was mailed but it was timely mailed because that is what we do. We have office procedures. Here they are. See the Affidavit of Jay [edited for content] in Norfolk VA who will tell you what went on down there just in case the denial was sent from there. See the Affidavit of Dominic [edited for content] in case the denial was sent from Vermont on a Tuesday morning … {etc. “J[edited for content] It was timely mailed because that is what we do.”
If the blind Justice Lady came to life and heard about this nonsense she would constantly be throwing up all over the place. Her scales would gush with vomit.