Opinion
164656/07.
Decided April 7, 2011.
Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt, P.C., Brooklyn, NY, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Law Offices of Daniel J. Tucker, American Transit Insurance Co., New York, NY, Attorney for Defendant.
This motion raises the issue of whether an insurer must issue a denial within 30 days of an injured party's failure to appear for a post claim IME. The court concludes that since a failure to appear for a post claim is a violation of a condition precedent to the contract, as opposed to a policy exclusion, a denial on this ground is not subject to the preclusion rule.
Plaintiffs Neomy Medical, P.C., Perfect Point Acupuncture, P.C., and Chiropractic Back Care, P.C., (collectively "plaintiffs"), all medical service companies, commenced this action pursuant to Insurance Law 5106(a) to recover the sum of $5,854.55 for medical services they provided to their assignor Fan fan Both ("assignor" or "Both"). Defendant American Transit Ins. Co. ("American" or "defendant") cross moved for summary judgment based on its claim that the assignor failed to appear at an independent medical examination ("IME")("IME no show").
During oral argument, defendant conceded that only some of its denials were timely; ie mailed within 30 days of receipt of claim form. Defendant contended, however, that its late denials were not fatal since failure to appear for an IME is a violation of a condition precedent to the insurance policy which vitiates the contract and makes such s violation a non-precludable defense which survives a late denial. Plaintiff countered that an IME no show is a precludable defense. The court requested briefs solely on this issue.
To grant summary judgment, "it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is presented. Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind , 3 NY3d 295 (2004); Zuckerman v, City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 (1980). A plaintiff establishes a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidentiary proof that the prescribed statutory billing form has been mailed and received, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue." Mary Immaculate Hosp. v. Allstate Ins ., 5 AD3d 742 , 743 (2d Dept. 2004); Second Medical v. Auto One Ins ., 20 Misc 3d 291 , 293 (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2008).
Condition Precedent
11 NYCRR 65-1.1 (d) provides for the mandatory personal injury protection endorsement ("PIP"). Under the subheading entitled "Conditions", "Action against Company," the regulation provides that "No action shall lie against the [c]ompany unless, as a condition precedent thereto, there shall have been full compliance with the terms of this coverage." One provision under this subheading provides that the eligible person shall submit to medical examinations by physicians selected by or acceptable to the insurer . . . when, and as often as, the Company may reasonably require." 11 NYCRR § 65 — 1.1(d)[Sec. I. Conditions, Proof of Claim (b)]. Another condition to coverage under this section is that an eligible person shall, as may reasonably be required, submit to examinations under oath ("EUO") by any person named by the insurer. Id.
Since the right to conduct EUOs and IMEs both appear in the PIP, and thus constitute conditions precedent to coverage, the case law treats both of these examinations in the same fashion.
In Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. , 7 Misc 3d 18 , 20 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2004) aff'd 35 AD3d 720 (2d Dept. 2006), the Appellate Term found that an insurer had the right to conduct an IME prior to its "receipt of the statutory claim form or its statutory equivalent which "under the regulations, trigger the verification process." The right to an IME, at this juncture was not afforded by the verification procedures, as the "detailed and narrowly construed verification protocols are not amenable to application at a stage prior to submission of a claim form." Id at 21. The court then noted the "Conditions" section in the Mandatory PIP predicates the right to commence an action against the insurer upon an eligible injured person's ("assignor") compliance with the terms of coverage. Fogel, supra, 7 Misc 3d at 25 (Golia, J., conc. in part and diss. in part)."Where an eligible injured person fails to submit to a reasonably requested IME, the insurance policy, by its terms . . . affords no coverage for the otherwise eligible injured person." 7 Misc 3d at 25 citing to Orr. v Continental Cas. Co., 205 AD2d 599 (2d Dept. 1994) (Under New York law, the insurer has the right to declare the contract at the end where the insured breaches a term upon which the contract was conditioned). Thus, an insured's refusal to comply with a reasonably requested IME which was not opposed or adequately refuted, constitutes a complete defense to the claim warranting dismissal. 7 Misc 3d at 25.
In affirming the Appellate Term, the Second Department found that there was no distinction between the contractual remedies available for failure to appear for pre claim as opposed to post claim IMEs and that the "appearance of the insured for IMEs at any time is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability on the policy." Fogel v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD2d 720, 721 (2d Dept. 2006).
The majority found that the language mandating compliance with the terms of the coverage as a condition precedent to bringing a lawsuit applied solely to "an insureds cooperation with the post claim verification protocols with regard to IMEs." 7 Misc 3d at 22.
The First Department subsequently found failure to comply with a request for an IME, whether pre-or post claim was a violation of a condition of coverage which would preclude an action against an insurer for payment of health services provided. Inwood Hill Medical, P.C. v. General Assurance Co. , 10 Misc 3d 18 . 20 (App. Term, First Dept. 2005).In Inwood Hill Medical, P.C. v. General Assurance Co. , 10 Misc 3d 18 , 20 (1st Dept. 2005), the First Department ruled that "inasmuch as attendance at a medical examination is a condition of coverage under Section 65-1.1, it follows that an eligible injured person's failure to comply with a request for an IME precludes an action against an insurer for payment of health services provided."
Preclusion Rule
Insurance Law § 5106(a) sets forth that no fault benefits "are overdue if not paid within 30 days after the claimant provides proof of the fact and the amount of loss sustained." Similarly 11 NYCRR § 65-3.8 c require that "(w)ithin 30 calendar days after proof of claim is received, the insurer shall either pay or deny the claim in whole or part." See Presbyterian Hosp. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278-79 (1997) ("30 day rule").
A timely disclaimer is not required, however, when the policy on which the claim rests does not, by its terms, cover the incident giving rise to liability. Handlesman v. Sea Insurance Co., 85 NY2d 96 (1994). "Under those circumstances, the insurance policy does not contemplate coverage in the first instance, and requiring payment of a claim upon failure to timely disclaim would create coverage where it never existed." Mtr. Of Worcester Ins. Co. V. Bettenhauser, 95 NY2d 185, 189 (2000). However, a timely disclaimer is necessary when the denial of coverage is based upon a policy exclusion or a breach of a policy condition without which the claim would be covered. Id. See, Zappone v, Home Ins. Co., 55 NY2d 131 (1982),
Although there are legions of cases discussing the preclusion rule, "drawing the line" between a lack of coverage in the first instance (requiring no disclaimer) and a lack of coverage based on a policy exclusion (requiring a timely denial) has proven to be "problematic". Mtr. Of Worcester, supra, 95 NY2d at 189.
In Fair Price Medical v. Travelers Ins., 10 NY3d 556 (2008), the Court of Appeals further clarified when the non-preclusion rule applied. Citing to its prior decision in Central General Hospital v. Chubb Group, 90 NY2d 195 (1997), the Court cautioned that there was only one "narrow" exception to the preclusion rule for those situations where an insurance company raises the defense of lack of coverage. Fair Price, 10 NY3d at at 563. A determination as to whether a specific defense is precluded under the 30 day rule or falls within the exception entails a judgment as to whether the defense is more like a "normal exception" from coverage such as a policy exclusion or a lack of coverage in the first instance, i.e. a defense "implicating a coverage matter." 10 NY3d at 565.
The oft cited distinction between policy exclusions and lack of coverage was further elaborated upon in State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. V. Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 (2005). In finding that medical corporations that are fraudulently incorporated are not entitled to reimbursement the Court of Appeals pointed to 11 NYCRR 65-3.16(a)(12), which excludes from the meaning of "basic economic loss" payments made to unlicensed or fraudulently licensed providers "thus rendering them ineligible for reimbursement" 4 NY3d at 320. These revised regulations (which include the PIP) do not "create not a new category of exclusion, but rather merely a condition precedent with which all claimants must comply in order to receive benefits under statute". 4 NY3d at 321 citing Mtr. Of Medical Society of NY v. Serio, 100 NY2d 854.866 (2003).
In Travelers indemnity Co. v. Milan Medical, 2009 NY Slip Op. 31604U, 2009 NY Misc LEXIS 3867 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2009), the court found that the Mallela defense was a "coverage defense: and as such was not subject to the preclusion rule. Id at 5. See Multiquest PLLC v. Allstate Ins. Co., 17 Misc 3d 37 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2007); Crossbay Acupuncture v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 110 (App. Term, 2d dept. 2007); Eastern Medical P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 19 Misc 3d 775 , 790 (the challenged regulation in Mallela did not create a new category of exclusion but rather was "a condition precedent with which all claimants must comply in order to receive benefits."). The court rejected the defendant's contention that the defense of fraudulent incorporation did not fit within the "tight restrictions of the exception to preclusion outlined in General Hospital v. Chubb, 90 NY2d 199. Chubb, like Mallela, "spoke to a threshold coverage matter" Id.
In the very recent decision of Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. V. Bayshore Physical Therapy, 2011 NY Slip Op 1948 (App. Div., 1st Dept. 3/17/11), the First Department explicitly found that "the failure to appear for IMEs requested by an insurer . . . is a breach of a condition precedent to coverage under the No-Fault policy, and therefore fits squarely within the exception to the preclusion doctrine. Id at 2 citing Central General Hosp. V. Chubb, 90 NY2d 195 (1997) (defense that injured person's condition and hospitalization were unrelated to the accident was non precludable). The First Department justified its finding that an IME no show was a non-precludable defense on the ground that a "breach of a condition precedent to coverage voids the policy ab initio." Thus, the failure to appear for an IME cancels the contract as if there was no coverage in the first instance and the insurer has the right to deny all claims retroactively to the date of loss, regardless of whether the denials were timely. Id.
In light of the afore-mentioned precedent, it is clear that the claimant's failure to comply with a condition precedent to coverage voids the contract ab initio and defendant is not obligated to pay the claim, regardless of whether it issued denials beyond the 30 day period. Furthermore, since the contract has been vitiated, defendant may deny all the claims retroactively to the date of loss. In light of the above, the case is dismissed with prejudice.
This constitutes the Amended Decision and Order of the Court which replaces the Decision and Order of the Court dated March 30, 2011, which is hereby recalled and vacated.