Allstate Ins. Co. v. Longevity Med. Supply, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Longevity Med. Supply, Inc.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 22, 2018

Docket2018 NYSlipOp 50238(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. (Allstate Ins. Co. v. Longevity Med. Supply, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Allstate Insurance Company, Petitioner-Appellant,

against

Longevity Medical Supply, Inc., a/a/o Tessa Barton, Respondent-Respondent.

Petitioner appeals from an order and judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered on or about December 14, 2016, which denied its petition to vacate a master arbitration award in favor of respondent, awarding it unpaid no-fault benefits in the principal sum of $1,080.00 and attorney's fees, and confirmed the master arbitration award.

Per Curiam.

Order and judgment (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered on or about December 14, 2016, affirmed, with $25 costs.

Petitioner-insurer failed to demonstrate a ground pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate the master arbitrator's award. There was a rational basis, based on the no-fault regulations, for the master arbitrator's finding that respondent-medical provider's proof was sufficient to establish that (1) it responded to the verification demands sent by petitioner, and (2) that petitioner was therefore required, but failed, to rebut the presumption of receipt of the verification, or show that it timely acted upon receipt by paying or denying the claim, or seeking further verification. The master arbitrator's legal analysis of the arbitrator's determination was well within the scope of her authority to review and correct an error of law made by the arbitrator (see 11 NYCRR 65-4.10[a][4]; Matter of Smith [Firemen's Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d 224, 231 [1982]; Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207, 211 [1981]). Applying the law to a given set of facts is well within the province of a master arbitrator, even if the master arbitrator's conclusion differs from that of the arbitrator (see Martinez v Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 146 AD2d 610 [1989]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 22, 2018

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allstate Insurance Company, Petitioner-Appellant,

against

Longevity Medical Supply, Inc., a/a/o Tessa Barton, Respondent-Respondent.

Petitioner appeals from an order and judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered on or about December 14, 2016, which denied its petition to vacate a master arbitration award in favor of respondent, awarding it unpaid no-fault benefits in the principal sum of $1,080.00 and attorney's fees, and confirmed the master arbitration award.

Per Curiam.

Order and judgment (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered on or about December 14, 2016, affirmed, with $25 costs.

Petitioner-insurer failed to demonstrate a ground pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate the master arbitrator's award. There was a rational basis, based on the no-fault regulations, for the master arbitrator's finding that respondent-medical provider's proof was sufficient to establish that (1) it responded to the verification demands sent by petitioner, and (2) that petitioner was therefore required, but failed, to rebut the presumption of receipt of the verification, or show that it timely acted upon receipt by paying or denying the claim, or seeking further verification. The master arbitrator's legal analysis of the arbitrator's determination was well within the scope of her authority to review and correct an error of law made by the arbitrator (see 11 NYCRR 65-4.10[a][4]; Matter of Smith [Firemen's Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d 224, 231 [1982]; Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207, 211 [1981]). Applying the law to a given set of facts is well within the province of a master arbitrator, even if the master arbitrator's conclusion differs from that of the arbitrator (see Martinez v Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 146 AD2d 610 [1989]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 22, 2018

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-ins-co-v-longevity-med-supply-inc-nyappterm-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack