tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4754540220266106237.post7803973937748550780..comments2024-03-17T16:43:50.668-04:00Comments on Coverage Counsel: Auto Premium Rate Evasion -- Insidious Brand of Outright Fraud Results in Denial of No-Fault BenefitsRoy A. Murahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06367888044845855898noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4754540220266106237.post-66461121702836553162009-08-17T09:02:50.897-04:002009-08-17T09:02:50.897-04:00Ray -- Although I've not posted in a few weeks...Ray -- Although I've not posted in a few weeks, the response comment you claim to have submitted -- and instead posted to <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/zuppaspit/" rel="nofollow">your imaginatively illustrated website</a> -- never made it to my blog. But claiming that I squelched it makes for better persecutory ideation, I suppose. <br /><br />You may have read the decision in full, but your analysis still falls short. The holding does not encompass "innocent" passengers and it would be imperfect for anyone or any company to read it that way. The assignor was the policy applicant and vehicle registrant, and, in quoting <i>Kaplun</i>, the Appellate Term made it clear that "an insurer may assert misrepresentation or fraud as an affirmative defense in an action by <b>an insured</b> to recover benefits under the policy". When speaking no-fault, you know that EIPs are not referred to an "insureds" whether upstate or downstate, right? <br /><br />Read the decision again, Harry.Roy A. Murahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06367888044845855898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4754540220266106237.post-60550970246953644432009-08-03T10:34:32.279-04:002009-08-03T10:34:32.279-04:00Zuppa -- I think you missed the point, not Justice...Zuppa -- I think you missed the point, not Justices Heitler and McKeon. The one who was left without no-fault coverage benefits in this case <b>was</b> the insured-applicant-assignor, not an "innocent" passenger. No need to cleave any infants. <br /><br />And rate evasion is not a "half story" or "half baked public policy argument". Just drive around the neighborhoods in the boroughs and take a look at the license plates. <br /><br />Or take a look at <a href="http://www.vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=2858589&server=www.vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=1&color=ffffff&fullscreen=1" rel="nofollow">this.</a>Roy A. Murahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06367888044845855898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4754540220266106237.post-31520591747104672412009-07-31T20:33:08.417-04:002009-07-31T20:33:08.417-04:00Great points made by a very good judge. But he mi...Great points made by a very good judge. But he misses the point terribly.<br /><br />What of the claimant/passenger that has no idea about the insured/owner's rate evasion tactic. This poor soul -- who by significant percentage may be a hardworking person without health insurance; this poor soul receives no coverage for her injuries. No medical treatment or major debt.<br /><br />Perhaps the loss of the house because of medical debt -- prior to the mortgage meltdown this was the number on cause of foreclosures.<br /><br />What if this poor soul claimant is a child or an elderly person not yet eligible for medicare which only pays 80%.<br /><br />And the insurance company collected premiums but pays out nothing.<br /><br />Why not enunciate a rule wherein the insured receives no benefits. Why did the Court decide to punish the innocent to increase insurance company profits cloaked in a half story/half baked public policy argument.<br /><br />The answer was that simple Judge. So simple I thought of it. So good that Solomon thought of it centuries ago. Split the baby.<br /><br />"He will layeth them low; them that dwell on the high lofty city."Zuppanoreply@blogger.com