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This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 All!['Serious Legal Errors'?: Rival League May Appeal Following Dismissal of Soccer Antitrust Case 'Serious Legal Errors'?: Rival League May Appeal Following Dismissal of Soccer Antitrust Case](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/6d/c4/9fef7ed94ec2ab661f4098d24490/hector-gonzalez-2022-002-767x633.jpg)
'Serious Legal Errors'?: Rival League May Appeal Following Dismissal of Soccer Antitrust Case
6 minute read![How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/08/74/d52420804282a7dfc379a3c57b89/human-resources-767x633-10.jpg)
How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
4 minute read![The Lawyers Waging the Legal Fight Against the Trump Administration The Lawyers Waging the Legal Fight Against the Trump Administration](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/4e/db/1bd26a0247e8afb36d78c52e415a/donald-trump-executive-orders-767x633.jpg)
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Rejuvenation of a Sharp Employer Non-Compete Tool: Delaware Supreme Court Reinvigorates the Employee Choice Doctrine
- 2Mastering Litigation in New York’s Commercial Division Part V, Leave It to the Experts: Expert Discovery in the New York Commercial Division
- 3GOP-Led SEC Tightens Control Over Enforcement Investigations, Lawyers Say
- 4Transgender Care Fight Targets More Adults as Georgia, Other States Weigh Laws
- 5Roundup Special Master's Report Recommends Lead Counsel Get $0 in Common Benefit Fees
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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