A Policy Exhaustion Refresher and Questions of Applicable Law, Discoverability
In this edition of their No-Fault Insurance Law Wrap-Up, David M. Barshay and Steven J. Neuwirth provide an update on a prior split between the Appellate Terms in the First and Second Departments concerning exhaustion of the policy limits, and discuss decisions involving conflicts of law and discoverability of a special investigative unit (SIU) file, respectively.
April 07, 2021 at 12:45 PM
10 minute read
In our April 12, 2017 No-Fault Insurance Law Wrap-Up column, we reported on the split between the Appellate Terms in the First and Second Departments concerning exhaustion of the policy limits, and the recent (at the time) Appellate Term, Second Department decision in Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 27097 (App. Term 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2017). A brief refresher is in order.
The statutorily mandated no-fault policy limits in most automobile policies is $50,000. Optional Basic Economic Loss (OBEL) and Additional Personal Injury Protection (APIP) may be purchased to increase coverage amounts by $25,000 and $50,000. Self-insured vehicles must carry the minimum $50,000 in no-fault benefits. The No-Fault Regulations, specifically 11 NYCRR 65-3.15, provide the order in which claims should be paid when a policy is at or near exhaustion:
When claims aggregate to more than $50,000, payments for basic economic loss shall be made to the applicant and/or an assignee in the order in which each service was rendered or each expense was incurred, provided claims therefor were made to the insurer prior to the exhaustion of the $50,000. If the insurer pays the $50,000 before receiving claims for services rendered prior in time to those which were paid, the insurer will not be liable to pay such late claims. If the insurer receives claims of a number of providers of services, at the same time, the payments shall be made in the order of rendition of services.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readWhistleblowers Are Here To Stay: Counseling Corporate Clients on Whistleblower Programs
9 minute readTrump Mulls Big Changes to Banking Regulation, Unsettling the Industry
Treasury Issues New Regulations on Allocation of Partnership Liabilities
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1I Aim to Make a Positive Change in Everyday Interactions, Tracey Wishert Says
- 2Connecticut Is Updating its Environmental Justice Regulations
- 3Navigating Florida's Products Liability Law: Defective Products, Warnings and the Pursuit of Justice
- 4Is Mobile App Security Your Achilles’ Heel?
- 5Enemy of the State: Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions after ‘Halkbank’
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250