Key Takeaway
Learn how IME no-show defenses trigger hourly attorney fee provisions in NY no-fault insurance. Court rules failure to attend IME is policy defense.
This article is part of our ongoing coverage coverage, with 150 published articles analyzing coverage issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Kamara Supplies v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 192 AD3d 588 (1st Dept. 2021)
I find it offensive that a regulation states that an attorney should work for $70 an hour litigating a case, even a PIP case. It is wrong and, intrinsically, I hate to even acknowledge these minimum wage attorney fee disputes. But this case, which I subliminally ignored, raises the issue. Oh in Fla, they award between $500-$750 an hour for these cases. Hi DFS – how about $250 an hour on all cases, subject to a $10,000 cap, absent good cause shown?
(1) “We find that “policy conditions or exclusion” under which the injured person is excluded from coverage in the “policy issue” reason in box 4 of the NYS NF-10 form refers to the conditions and exclusions of the MPIPE (11 NYCRR 65-1.1 ), which include, as noted above, that an EIP must submit to IMEs as required by the insurer. We therefore conclude that an IME no-show defense is a box 4 reason for denial. An EIP who does not attend an IME fails to satisfy a condition precedent to coverage under the policy, voiding the policy ab initio (PV Holding Corp. v Hank Ross Med., P.C., 188 AD3d 429, 430 ).”
(2) “Thus, an insurer who denies a claim for first-party No-Fault benefits on the basis of the injured person’s failure to attend an IME properly does so by checking box 4 on the denial of claim form, and therefore an injured person’s failure to attend an IME is a “policy issue” both according to the denial of claim form and for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c).”
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
(3) “Moreover, statutes and regulations must be interpreted in a manner that does not render them meaningless, unreasonable, or absurd (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 145; Long v State of New York, 7 NY3d 269, 273 ). For this reason, we also reject the overly restrictive reading of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c) urged by defendant, which would interpret “a policy issue as enumerated on the prescribed denial of claim form” (id.) as referring only to those specific justifications delineated on the form, and only as they are delineated on the form. That interpretation would both render some of the reasons on the denial of claim form meaningless and require the Department of Financial Services effectively to reproduce the MPIPE on the form to capture all the possible reasons for which a No-Fault benefits claim may be denied.”
Congratulations for minimum wage lawyering. At least when I worked at taco bell in the 1990s, I got to eat for free 😉
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Insurance Coverage Issues in New York
Coverage disputes determine whether an insurance policy provides benefits for a particular claim. In the no-fault context, coverage questions involve policy inception, named insured status, vehicle registration requirements, priority of coverage among multiple insurers, and the applicability of exclusions. These articles examine how New York courts resolve coverage disputes, the burden of proof on coverage defenses, and the interplay between regulatory requirements and policy language.
150 published articles in Coverage
Keep Reading
More Coverage Analysis
Contractual deemer
New York courts examine when out-of-state insurers can avoid no-fault coverage obligations through contractual deemer provisions and policy language analysis.
Apr 24, 2021
$200,000 No-Fault Coverage for NYC Taxis: Murzik Taxi, TLC Rule 58-13, and Pedestrians
NYC taxi owners must carry $200,000 per person in no-fault coverage for basic economic loss, not $50,000. Murzik Taxi v Lutheran Medical explains why.
Apr 24, 2021
Policy Exhaustion goes to Madison Avenue/Someone from the Insurance Defense side should be putting in Amicu
Ameriprise v Kensington Radiology: Court grants appeal on $50,000 policy exhaustion defense in NY no-fault insurance arbitration award case.
Aug 23, 2018
Declaratory judgment action (again) moots the underlying Civil Court action
Court ruling demonstrates how declaratory judgment actions can effectively moot underlying Civil Court proceedings through res judicata doctrine in no-fault insurance disputes.
Mar 19, 2015
The declaratory judgment failed to name everybody
New York court ruling on declaratory judgment privity in no-fault insurance cases involving assignee providers and material misrepresentation claims.
Mar 21, 2013
The Appellate Division grants an Article 75 petition and remands the matter back to AAA arbitration
Appellate Division grants Article 75 petition in MVAIC v Interboro Medical, remanding no-fault arbitration case back to AAA for coverage determination.
May 31, 2010Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a coverage matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
