Impulse Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.. 2021 NY Slip Op 51031(U)(
“In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on two grounds: (1) that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs), a defense which is subject to preclusion (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 [2d Dept 2009]; cf. Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559 [1st Dept 2011]), and (2) that there was a lack of coverage in that the incident from which the alleged injuries arose was a staged accident, a defense which is not subject to preclusion (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]).”
It is not as if this decision is in any way notable. I would consider this a typical decision except with the caveat that it is the rare time that the Court cites both cases in its order.
But this was Unitrin’s birthday year. Where are the baloons.
