Metropolitan Group Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Gonzalez – Active Care Med. Supply Corp. (Sup, Ct. 151619/12)
I checked the underlying cases because I was curious. It looks like Metroplitan’s SIU discovery chicanery, sought EUOS and nobody appeared.
A DJ action was interposed, the usual suspects answered and a motion for summary judgment was interposed that was granted. Missing from the moving papers was evidence as to when the billing was received and whether the EUO’s were scheduled within 30-days of receipt of the billing. Rybak appealed and I am sure the order will be reversed. We saw that play out in National v. Tam and Liberty v. KO Medical. Why is Plaintiff creating more bad law? I am confused.
I would call client, let them know the law changed, consent to vacate the order of Supreme Court, and move again. What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
One Response
Thanks for the heads up on Liberty v. KO Medical, just what I needed.
the carrier is doing what several other carriers are doing.
Read literally, the language in unitrin opens the door to all sorts of insurer fraud. I’m seeing bizarrely untimely euo demands a lot now. Some carriers are sending out EUO demands regarding medical claims that are over a decade old (I don’t want to name names, but Country-Wide). The insurers are making EUO demands that they expect will not be ADHERED to (since they are untimely), so they can “retroactively” deny the claim to the date of the loss. Checkmate providers! apparently, insurer counsel does not keep updated on the law or is fishing around for specific supreme court judges.