The Ins Law 5106(c) trial de novo

If I were to use this blog for advertising purposes, I would recommend consulting with me if you receive a PIP trial de novo. It is a side business and I have seen some of the most interesting behaviors..

But, on a more serious note, when an insurance carrier uses a de novo action for no reason other than to force settlements, you know the statute is not being properly applied. But I put the blame on the arb attorneys who will actually negotiate disadvantageous settlements after they won twice. If I am an insurance carrier and I see that behavior, my more venal side might ask you to prove yourself. My worst day is an 80-50 settlement. The good faith side of me would shy away from these absent a legitimate reason. I believe I always have a legitimate reason to dive down the de-novo train.

And that brings me to something else. If you can figure out how to properly litigate one of these suckers, the insurance carrier should usually lose, with minimal provider based discovery. Why? Who holds the cards in these cases? Who bears the burdens of proof? Who has the relevant documentation? Who has the skeletons on the closet?

Related Articles

• Understanding CPLR 3212(g) paradigm for summary judgment
• Critical timing rules for summary judgment motions in New York
• No-fault verification requirements and partial compliance issues
• Understanding reasonable excuse and default judgment scenarios
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law