You can read Bethany's post about the arbitration decision here.Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the defense of fraudulent procurement of an insurance policy, which is nonwaivable and hence exempt from the 30-day preclusion rule, may be asserted as against plaintiffs providers in this action seeking to recover assigned no-fault benefits (cf. Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751, 751-752 ).
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Consequence of Rate Evasion on a No-Fault Claim
Over at our sister blog, Arbiters of NY No-Fault, my associate Bethany Mazur reports on a recent arbitration decision we obtained for an insurer client in which Arbitrator Veronica O’Connor ruled that the assignor's proven participation in rate evasion disqualified the assignee from recovery of no-fault benefits, and that the rate evasion/application misrepresentation or fraud defense was not subject to the 30-day preclusion rule, citing A.B. Medical Services, PLLC a/a/o Yevgenya Ioffe v. Commercial Mut. Ins. Co., 12 Misc.3d 8 (App. Term, 2nd Dept., 2006), in which the Appellate Term stated: