Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1999–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Central General Hospital v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companiesgreen2 sentences2016Contrary to plaintiff's contention, any failure by defendant to timely deny plaintiff's claims does not preclude it from asserting a lack of coverage defense ( id. ). 2012Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]), here, the defendant’s submissions were insufficient to raise triable issues of fact with respect to a lack of coverage defense (see Mercury Cas. | 3 | 7 |
Zappone v. Home Insurancegreen2 sentences2018Co. , 55 NY2d 131, 135-136 [1982] [lack of coverage defense is not precluded]; see also Central Gen. 2016Co. , 55 NY2d 131, 135-136 [1982] [lack of coverage defense is not precluded]; see also Central Gen. | 2 | 2 |
A.B. Medical Services, PLLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen1 sentence2006Co., 7 Misc 3d 822, 825 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2005].) Before trial, it is well established that to defeat a plaintiffs motion for summary judgment for first-party no-fault benefits, a defendant asserting a lack of coverage defense must set forth admissible evidence of “the fact or [a] founded belief that the alleged injury does not arise out of an insured incident.” (Central Gen. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
MVAIC v. Interboro Medical Care & Diagnostic PC
neutral
2 sentences2021Care & Diagnostic PC , 73 AD3d 667 [2010]). 2017Care & Diagnostic PC , 73 AD3d 667 [2010]). | 3 | 2010–2021 |
Mercury Casualty Co. v. Encare, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2012Co. v Encare, Inc., 90 AD3d 475 [2011]; D.S. 2012Co. v Encare, Inc., 90 AD3d 475 [2011]; D.S. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
FAIR PRICE MED. v. Travelers
green
1 sentence2008Co. ( 42 AD3d 277 [2007], affd 10 NY3d 556 [2008]), addressed the preclusion rule and the lack of coverage exception. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Fair Price Medical Supply Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
green
1 sentence2008Co. ( 42 AD3d 277 [2007], affd 10 NY3d 556 [2008]), addressed the preclusion rule and the lack of coverage exception. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Mount Sinai Hospital v. Triboro Coach, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007The defendant in Mount Sinai unsuccessfully claimed that the plaintiff’s condition was entirely unrelated to the accident because she “had previously suffered from an unspecified ‘brain disorder . . . manifested by seizures and hospitalizations’ ” and her condition was not incurred in the accident (Mount Sinai, 263 AD2d at 14 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.