Leica Supply, Inc. v GEICO Indem. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50478(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
” A review of defendant’s letters reveals that they merely notified plaintiff that defendant was delaying payment, but they did not request any specific verification. As a result, these delay letters did not toll the statutory time period within which defendant was required to pay or deny plaintiff’s claims”
An interesting question involves how specific must delay letters be? I am assuming this was for an IME or EUO. Do the letters have to state the date of the examination? If it was for a police report or DWI information, must it state the precinct and the police department that is being sought? If DWI information, must it name the court and docket number?
Just wondering.
3 Responses
They must actually give me a reason to delay. Give us a break. Carriers are so out of control w ver requests. It’s beyond abuse. It’s illegal and goes against the regs in every way.
how bout this- NYCM issues letters pending for additional verification and a signed statement from the injured. The claimant with attorney gives a statement. the claims are timely and properly denied after the statement is given. Is this a verification request or delay letter? two judges in kings civ. think they’re verification requests. seems like a slam dunk that they’re delay letters and the cases are likely to be appealed but some times I come out of kings court thinking maybe I’m just not getting this whole “no-fault” thing.
Jesus Mike H. given the firm that trained you the fact that you could find the Court is amazing.
You’re doing great work Mike. The Captain has his ears to the ground.
If it weren’t for …. where would I be now … one third richer.