Judge Fred Hirsh
State Farm moved for summary judgment, while provider Concourse Chiropractic moved to compel discovery. Concourse sought to recover no-fault benefits for services provided to assignor Guzman. State Farm’s special investigation unit was investigating Concourse’s operation since 2006, believing someone other than the licensed professional listed on the owner controlled Concourse and other allegedly related entities. State Farm acknowledge receipt of Concourse’s claim, but requested an examination under oath (EUO) and production of numerous documents a week before the EUO relating to the provider’s ownership. State Farm denied the claims based on the non-appearance of Concourse for the EUO. The court noted while State Farm established it had a factual basis that Concourse may be subject to a Malella defense, the no-fault regulations did not contain provisions permitting an insurer to demand production of numerous documents in connection with an EUO for a $251 unpaid claim, finding such request was an abuse of the EUO and the entire verification process. Therefore, the court found State Farm’s EUO notice was palpably improper, denying the insurer’s motion for summary judgment.
