Were the services billed for?

(1) “Defendant alleges that it received the claims underlying the first and eighth causes of action on April 5, 2010 and that it denied those claims on May 13, 2010, which was more than 30 days later. While defendant demonstrated that it had mailed what it denominated as “verification/delay request(s)” on April 5, 2010 and May 7, 2010, those letters were insufficient to constitute verification requests”

The delay letter verses additional verification request.   The request must state “who” and “what”.  Not sure about “why” and the jury is out on “when”.

(2)  However, defendant did submit a letter dated April 19, 2010 which scheduled plaintiff’s assignor for an examination under oath (EUO), as well as proof that plaintiff’s assignor had appeared for the scheduled EUO. While defendant did not submit proof that the EUO scheduling letter had been timely mailed, we find that defendant’s submissions are sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the time to pay or deny the claims underlying the first and eighth causes had been tolled, and therefore whether the denials were timely.”

This seems like a wishy wash way out of resolving a legal issue.

(3) “However, the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second through seventh causes of action, on the ground that the services billed for had not been rendered, were properly denied, albeit for a different reason than that advanced by the Civil Court. Contrary to the Civil Court’s finding, the certified EUO transcript relied upon by defendant was admissible”

This would be “the New York rule”.   It brings back memories.

Related Articles

• Understanding EUO Requirements in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
• New York EUO Requirements: When Examination Under Oath Demands Are Untimely
• Validity of EUO, Appellate Term, 2d Dept: Take two
• Understanding EUO Denial: When Insurance Companies Can Substantiate Coverage Denials
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law