NO-FAULT – NECESSARY EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES – STABILIZATION – INTOXICATION-CAUSED INJURIESSt. Barnabas Hospital v. Government Employees Insurance Company (Sup. Ct., Nassau Co., decided 2/1/2017) Once upon a time (before 2011) New York no-fault ...

Here are the FeedBlitz email updates for royamura@gmail.com

If you are unable to open any of the 'Read the whole entry' links below, please go directly to the Coverage Counsel blog by clicking its banner above.  You may also follow @CoverageCounsel on .

Thanks for subscribing.  If you know others who may benefit from subscribing to this blog, please forward this email to them and have them click here

Roy Mura


Coverage Counsel - 5 new articles

No-Fault Insurer Found Entitled to Breakdown of What Hospital Services Constituted Necessary Emergency Health Services

NO-FAULT – NECESSARY EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES – STABILIZATION – INTOXICATION-CAUSED INJURIES
St. Barnabas Hospital v. Government Employees Insurance Company
(Sup. Ct., Nassau Co., decided 2/1/2017)

Once upon a time (before 2011) New York no-fault insurers could deny personal injury protection (no-fault) coverage benefits to a person "injured as a result of operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition or while his ability to operate such vehicle is impaired by the use of a drug within the meaning of section [1192] of the vehicle and traffic law[.]"

Since January 26, 2011, when the amended Insurance Law § 5103(b)(2) went into effect, however, New York no-fault insurers could no longer exclude from coverage payments for "necessary emergency health services rendered in a general hospital" to a person injured as the result of operating a motor vehicle while in an alcohol intoxicated or drug impaired condition.

In August 2015 I blogged about the new law and was surprised to report that in the more than four years since the new law's effective date, no New York court had yet issued a decision on its interpretation and application to no-fault claims. ...

Read the whole entry »

      


What Does It Mean To "Reside" for Insurance Purposes?

PROPERTY – RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT – CHANGE IN OCCUPANCY – AGENT LIABILITY
Harrison v. Allstate Indemnity Co.
(Sup. Ct., Steuben Co., decided 3/3/2017)

In 2009 plaintiffs moved 5-6 miles from the insured dwelling, their home of more than 15 years, to live with and care for Mrs. Insured's ill mother. They both changed the address on their drivers licenses and used their new address on their income tax returns. In July of 2010, Mr. Insured spoke with his Allstate agent to inform them that plaintiffs were living at the new address. As a result of that contact, the billing address for policy renewals was changed to the new address, but no other changes were made to the policy itself.

At some point after the plaintiffs had moved, plaintiffs' two sons, a cousin, and a friend began staying at the insured dwelling at different times and for various amounts of time. The house was destroyed by a fire on August 30, 2012. After plaintiffs filed a claim for insurance coverage, Allstate disclaimed liability on the ground that, as plaintiffs had not resided in the home for nearly three years, the home did not meet the policy's definition of a covered "dwelling".

...

Read the whole entry »

      


The Updated Should-You-Wish-to-Complain-About-Your-Insurance-Company Advisory Paragraph

I've blogged several times about the consumer advisory paragraph of New York Insurance Regulation 64 (11 NYCRR Part 216). Personal Lines insurers that do business in New York State should know that Regulation 64 requires certain letters to "prominently set out" a certain paragraph advising those to whom your letters are addressed that they may complain about you or your coverage position to New York's insurance regulator, known since October 2011 as the New York State Department of Financial Services.

Effective February 1, 2017 the consumer advisory paragraph changed with a new Garden City address for the NYS DFS's Long Island office. Pursuant to the Sixteenth Amendment to 11 NYCRR Part 216, the paragraph now reads (new language highlighted):

Should you wish to take this matter up with the New York State Department of Financial Services, you may file with the Department either on its website at http://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumer/fileacomplaint.htm or you may write to or visit the Consumer Assistance Unit, Financial Frauds and Consumer Protection Division, New York State Department of Financial Services, at: One State Street, New York, NY 10004; One Commerce Plaza, Albany, NY...

Read the whole entry »

      


Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

It has been said that someone who lies about little things will lie about big things. Not may lie. Will lie. True or not, many jurisdictions recognize the legal maxim of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus ("false in one thing, false in everything"), at least in terms of permitting the principle to be charged to juries or otherwise applied by the trier-of-fact.

For example, New York Pattern Jury Instruction 1:22, entitled "Falsus in Uno", reads:

If you find that any witness has wilfully testified falsely as to any material fact, that is as to an important matter, the law permits you to disregard completely the entire testimony of that witness upon the principle that one who testifies falsely about one material fact is likely to testify falsely about everything. You are not required, however, to consider such a witness as totally "unbelievable." You may accept so much of his or her testimony as you deem true and disregard what you feel is false. By the processes which I have just described to you, you, as the sole judges of the facts, decide which of the witnesses you will believe, what portion of their testimony you accept and what weight you will give to it.
...

Read the whole entry »

      


Poults, Planes, Piling & Named Perils -- A Fowl Coverage Decision for Thanksgiving

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY – TURKEY FLOATER POLICY – MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Larson v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
(Iowa Sup. Ct., decided 12/14/1965)

Did you know that a "turkey intitle:insurance" search on Google Scholar in all state and federal court databases returns 54 results? No? Well, now you do.

And that turkeys are NOT the dumbest animal on the planet? In fact, I've tried cases before ceiling-staring judges who may also have been suffering from tetanic torticollar spasms, and they were no dumber that the tryptophan-laden fowl that will be my main course tomorrow.

And that while turkeys can be emotionally comforting on airplanes (the Air Carrier Access Act of 1968 legally permits customers to fly with emotional support animals), they are not emotionally comforted by overflying ones? It's the predator shadow thing, apparently (see captioned image, infra).

A poult is a young turkey being raised for food. Plaintiff's family owned and operated a turkey farm in Iowa (still does, apparently, albeit with two fewer barns and 11,000-12,000 fewer turkeys as of two weeks ago) that as of 1965 had raised and marketed about 9,500 turkeys a year for 15 years. ...

Read the whole entry »

      


More Recent Articles



Click here to safely unsubscribe from "Coverage Counsel."
Click here to view mailing archives, here to change your preferences, or here to subscribePrivacy