In State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mallela,1 the New York Court of Appeals held that an insurer may withhold payment for medical services provided by “fraudulently incorporated” enterprises to which patients had assigned their no fault claims. As indicated in the Insurance Fraud column published here in January,2 that ruling (in which the authors’ firm represented the insurance carrier) has significantly helped efforts by insurance companies to crack down on fraudulent no fault claims—although not without continuing extensive, and fierce, litigation.
The January column explored a variety of issues that have been litigated since Mallela arising from the so-called “30-day rule.”3 This column continues that discussion, exploring the impact of Mallela on a range of other pretrial and trial topics.
Discovery
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
