Our Blog

No-Fault Providers Need Not Bill After a Denial

December 16, 2014

In State Farm v. Domotor 266 A.D.2d 219 (2nd Dept. 1999) the court held that after the no-fault carrier issues a denial of payment there is no need for the medical provider to send bills to the carrier. After the denial the provider can later litigate or arbitrate the bills for services provided after the denial without having to send in bills to the carrier.

In Domotor the court held that “An insured’s failure to provide timely written proof of loss is generally an absolute defense to an action to recover on the policy (see, Igbara Realty Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 63 NY2d 201). However, this absolute defense may be waived (see, Igbara Realty Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., supra; Treptow v Exchange Mut. Ins. Co., 106 AD2d 767). An insurance carrier may not insist upon adherence to the terms of its policy after it has repudiated liability on the claim by sending a letter disclaiming coverage (see, Rajchandra Corp. v Title Guar. Co., 163 AD2d 765, 769) for ‘[o]nce an insurer repudiates liability * * * the [in]sured is excused from any of its obligations under the policy’ (Ocean-Clear, Inc. v Continental Cas. Co., 94 AD2d 717, 718).”

In Domotor the carrier notified the appellant in December 1989 that it was denying all nofault benefits based upon the opinion of its medical expert that the patient no longer required treatment. The court held that his disclaimer excused the medical provider from time limitations for submitting medical proofs of loss. Rather, the insurance carrier “must `stand or fall upon the defense upon which it based its refusal to pay’ * * * i.e., because `no treatment [was] necessary’”

Request Your Free Consultation

Get the answers and support you need. Our friendly and experienced Buffalo personal injury lawyers will take the time to understand your case, explain your options, and guide you every step of the way.

Our Practice Areas

Read More Articles

Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Lawyers- Which State’s Laws apply?

July 11, the New York Fourth Department Appellate Division Court ruled a lawsuit in Lankenau v Boles (CA 13-01300), on a conflict of laws involving a tractor-trailer crash involving New York driver defendants. The question of whether New York’s common law seat belt rule applies to an accident

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Are Driverless Trucks Coming?

Just introduced in Germany is the Mercedes-Benz Actros 1845 designed to drive without active participation. 300 journalists watched the demonstration on the autobahn in Germany July 3rd. These big rigs may be coming this way, sooner than we think. If they do, hopefully they will will reduce truck

Read Blog