Search for: "U. S. v. Dept. of Insurance"
Results 1 - 20
of 147
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Aug 2011, 6:03 pm
Term 2d Dept. 2011) “Since an assignor’s appearance at an IME “is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy” (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722; see also Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1), defendant is entitled to summary [...] [read post]
27 Nov 2010, 7:45 pm
Term 2d Dept. 2010) (my case) Radiology Today, P.C. v Mercury Ins. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 9:57 am
Your insured negligently totals the claimant's auto.What's the measure of plaintiff's damages in New York? [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 6:04 am
Co. v. [read post]
23 Sep 2010, 2:37 pm
Term 1st Dept. 2010) “Plaintiff’s listing of Higginbotham as the insured party on its claim form — an apparent clerical error — did not obligate defendant to conduct an exhaustive search to exclude the possibility that Higgingbotham was defendant’s insured, a status she [...] [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 8:33 pm
Solty's Constr., Inc. (2nd Dept., decided 12/14/2010) If a party seeking coverage is neither an insured nor an additional insured under the policy, does New York Insurance Law § 3420(d) apply to require a prompt disclaimer of coverage? [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 7:26 pm
Term 2d Dept. 2011) “Plaintiff’s sole contention on appeal is that defendant’s motion should have been denied because defendant never proved that the applicable automobile insurance policy contained a provision entitling defendant to EUOs. [read post]
3 Aug 2020, 7:33 pm
Co. v Lee, 120 AD3d 497, 498-499 [2d Dept 2014]; Jones v Peerless Ins. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 3:56 pm
Term 2d Dept. 2010) “To raise a triable issue of fact based on the assignor’s failure to appear at scheduled EUOs, defendant was required to demonstrate that its initial and follow-up requests for verification were timely (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 [...] [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 12:15 pm
Term 2d Dept. 2011) “The affidavit of defendant’s litigation claims examiner established that defendant had timely mailed its request and follow-up request for verification to plaintiff (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.5 [b]; § 65-3.6 [b]) in accordance [...] [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 4:17 pm
Term 2d Dept. 2011) “Furthermore, contrary to the Civil Court’s determination, there is no requirement that EUO scheduling letters conspicuously highlight the information contained therein (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.5 [b], [e])” [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 11:27 am
Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51820(U)(2d Dept. 2010) “no-fault [action]…pursuant to a policy of insurance was not interposed within the applicable six-year statute of limitations since the cause of action accrued on the date the claim became overdue — here, 30 days after defendant’s receipt of the claim [...] [read post]
5 May 2012, 2:57 pm
Term 2d Dept. 2012) “On appeal, plaintiff contends that these branches of defendant’s motion should have been denied because defendant never proved that the applicable automobile insurance policy contained a provision entitling defendant to EUOs. [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 5:36 pm
Term 1st Dept. 2012) “The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the action for first-party no-fault benefits by establishing that it timely and properly mailed the notices for independent medical examinations (IMEs) to plaintiff’s assignor, [...] [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 8:13 pm
Co. (4th Dept., decided 6/11/2010) Plaintiffs submitted a certificate of insurance (COI) providing that they "and their respective officers, employees and agents [we]re named as additional insureds on [Thomas Johnson Inc.'s general liability policy with Sirius on] a direct, primary and non-contributory basis. [read post]
24 May 2010, 8:12 pm
Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50911(U)(App. [read post]
24 Nov 2021, 10:22 am
Co. v Mendez, 2021 NY Slip Op 30071[U], *4, 2021 NY Misc LEXIS 85, *6-7 [Sup Ct, N.Y. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 2:37 pm
Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50491(U)(App. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 6:00 am
., LTD v. [read post]
22 Nov 2009, 7:02 pm
Term, 2nd Dept., decided 7/10/2008) Yes, preclusion. [read post]
