Key Takeaway
New York appellate court reverses summary judgment in no-fault insurance case due to missing affidavit, raising questions about the necessity of the appeal.
When Documentation Falls Short: A Questionable Appeal in No-Fault Insurance Law
In the complex world of no-fault insurance litigation, proper documentation can make or break a case. The recent decision in Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Infinity Group illustrates how seemingly minor procedural oversights can lead to significant consequences—and sometimes, questionable appeals.
This case centers on an insurance company’s attempt to dismiss a healthcare provider’s claim by arguing that the policy had been validly cancelled under Pennsylvania law. However, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment fell short due to a critical missing piece of evidence. The case also highlights the ongoing importance of choice of law analysis in multi-jurisdictional insurance disputes, where determining which state’s laws apply can be decisive.
The procedural failure in this case is particularly noteworthy given the established precedent regarding policy cancellation requirements and the documentation needed to prove valid rescission.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Infinity Group, 2016 NY Slip Op 50257(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“In order to prevail on its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant was required to demonstrate that the insurance policy at issue had been validly cancelled in accordance with Pennsylvania law (see generally Compas Med., P.C. v Infinity Group, 46 Misc 3d 146, 2015 NY Slip Op 50219 ; W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v Infinity Prop. & Cas. Co., 36 Misc 3d 4 ). Although defendant’s motion papers contained a supporting affirmation by defense counsel and accompanying documents, and purported to include an affidavit by defendant’s litigation specialist, in fact, the affidavit of defendant’s litigation specialist was not included.”
I do not understand why this was appealed?
Key Takeaway
The appellate court reversed summary judgment because the insurance company failed to include a crucial affidavit from their litigation specialist, despite claiming it was part of their motion papers. This fundamental procedural error undermined their ability to prove valid policy cancellation under Pennsylvania law, leading to a straightforward reversal that seemingly didn’t warrant an appeal.
