Rolling the Dice: Does 'Alleviation' Alleviate Insurance Carrier Fears?
Carriers, providers, and legal practitioners, alike, hoped the court would provide clarity on a carrier's obligations once a policy becomes exhausted, but the recent decision did not squarely address that issue.
April 21, 2021 at 02:00 PM
5 minute read
On Feb. 24, 2021, the Appellate Division, Second Department issued a long-awaited decision in Alleviation Med. Svcs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 08159 (2d Dept. Feb. 24, 2021). Carriers, providers, and legal practitioners, alike, hoped the court would provide clarity on a carrier's obligations once a policy becomes exhausted, but the recent decision did not squarely address that issue. Instead, the court focused on the lack of carrier documentation in its underlying motion papers, and stated "there are issues of fact remaining as to when the claim was denied, and the basis and efficacy of the denial," despite confirming the carrier had proved policy exhaustion. See id.
Thus, albeit not articulated, the Second Department makes clear that proof of policy exhaustion, alone, is insufficient to dismiss a personal injury protection (PIP) lawsuit. That is, it is still necessary to scrutinize the timeliness and propriety of a denial. The logical conclusion is that a claim will be awarded if the denial or defense is not sustained regardless of policy exhaustion.
Pursuant to New York state no-fault law, an automobile insurance policy has a statutory mandatory minimum to include $50,000 in PIP. New York insurance law provides "first party benefits" coverage for "basic economic loss," which includes all necessary expenses incurred for medical treatment and loss of earnings from work. See N.Y. Ins. Law §5102(a)-(b). Insurance carriers are required to process each bill upon receipt. Therefore, the benefits are to be paid as the loss is incurred, prior to the exhaustion of the policy. See N.Y. Ins. Law §5106(a); see also Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v. Serio, 100 N.Y.2d 854, 860 (2003). Absent additional PIP coverage purchased by the insured, a policy will exhaust at $50,000.
This content has been archived.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 AllAs 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
7 minute read'So Many Firms' Have Yet to Announce Associate Bonuses, Underlining Big Law's Uneven Approach
5 minute readTikTok’s ‘Blackout Challenge’ Confronts the Limits of CDA Section 230 Immunity
6 minute readEnemy of the State: Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions after ‘Halkbank’
10 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
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