State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Gantt

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Gantt 2021 NY Slip Op 31880(U) June 4, 2021 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 502451/18 Judge: Lawrence S. Knipel Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/04/2021 12:40 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 INDEX NO. 502451/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/04/2021 At an IAS Term, Part 57 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the ~ day o ~ ~~ . PRESENT: ~· rJaZ- I VttJL J HON. LAWRENCEKNIPEL,. Justice, -· - - - - - - - - - - -.. - - - - - - - - - - - ·- ,. - - - - - .- - - - - - -X STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, - against - IndexNo. 502451/18 Individual Defendants VERNON GANTT, .Healthcare Defendants. ARON ROVNER, MD,PLLC, A,C. MEDICAL, P.C., VJT AL CHIROPRACTEC, P .C., AMERICAN KINETJCS LAB INC., IMPULSE IMAGING P.C., INTERFAITH MEDICAL CENTER, N1ETR0 PAIN SPECIALISTS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, RX FOR You CORP., SP ORTH0Tic·SuRGJCAL & MEDICALSUPPLY, INC., METROP0LlTAN SURGICAL SERVICES LLC, AUTO RX, LC, AR OTHROPEDICS P,C, COUNTY LINE PHARMACY LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, COUNTY LINEiPHARMACY, HEALTHPLUS SURGERY CENTER, LLC, CITIMED SERVICES, PA, TOWN SUPPLY, INC., SUTTER PHARMACY INC. andLDU THERAPY, INC., Defendants. - - - ~ - -· - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "' ~ _. ,. '- - -X The following e.;.fiJed papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc: Nos. Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed.._:_ _ __ 60-67 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) _ _ __ 69~72, 74 Upon the foregoing papers in this action for a declaratory judgment regarding no~ ' 1 of 6 " f [*FILED: 2] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/04/2021 12:40 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 INDEX NO. 502451/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/04/2021 fa.ult insurance coverage, defendants Aron Rovnerj MD, PLLC, Metro Pain Spet:ialists Professional Corporation and SP Orthotic Surgical & Medical Supply, Inc. (collectively, Provider Defendants) move (in motion sequence [mot, seq.]_ two) for an order, pursuant-to CPLR2005, 3012 (d)-and·S.015 (a){l), vacating the Noveiliber 14, 2019 defaultjudgrn,ent issued against the Provider Defendants and, upon vacatut, compelling plaintiff State Farnt Fire and Casualty Co1npahy (State Farni) to accept the Provider Defendants' answer to the. comp Iaint. On February 6, 2018, State Fann comme1;1.ced thi& action against the Provicler Defendar)ts ·and .others by- filing- a summons -and verified complaint -see~dng a judgil1ent declaring that State Farm is not obligated io ·provide insurance coverage under the insurance policy in effect· on February I0, 2017, ·the date of the. underlying in otor vehicle accident. According to·the Provider Defendants' counsel: •'Tb.is action _.putatively arose out of plaintiffs· intention~! and willful breach of contract in its failure to timely and pfoperly _pay the first party beneficiary claims of DEFENDA NT~? after plaintiff had recei_ved DEFENDANTS,' timely and properly submitted claims for No:-Fault reimbursements. Those. clahns sought -payment for medically necessary services: provjded by DEFENDANTS to persons entitled to receive bentfits uncler the New York Insurance Law and the No-Fault Implemen ting Regulations. (' Regula ti ans') promulgated,_ thereunde r." * * * '~in the· case at bar, .plaintiff has :erroneousiy and misleadin gly asserted causes of action seeking an advisory declaratory judgment declaring that it ·has no obligation to reimburse DEFEND ANTS under the subject insurance policy, on the_ 2 2 of 6 [*FILED: 3] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/04/2021 12:40 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 INDEX NO. 502451/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/04/2021 basis that the Assignors· allegedly made material misrepresentations in both procuring the. policy and presentment of the claim stemming from the February 10, 2017 accident." On or about September2 5,2018, . State Fann ntovedfor a default judgment against the nonappearing parties, including the Provider Defendants. In a November 14, 2019 order, this court granted State Farm a default judgment against the Provider Defendants. The Provider Defendants now move. to vacate the November 14, 2019 judgment and restore the action to the calendar because they have both a reasonable excuse for their default due to law office failure and a meritorious defense to this action. Counsel for the Provider Defendants affim1s that their "delay in appearing in this action was caused by law office failure ..." and "was not willful orintended to prejudice the Plaintiff, but rather [was] inadvertent." Defense counsel explains that the Provider Defendants did not receive the summons and complaint in a timely manner because they were served through the New York Secretary of State and ''the Secretary ofState has a backlog of Summons and Complaints upon which to serve Defendants." The Provider Defendants submit an affidavit. from Carmello Londono, a former paralegal in defense counsel's office, who attests that she contacted the office of the Secretary of State and was informed that it was experiencing a backlog of pleadings causing a delay in service. Defense counsel explains that the Provider Defendants, upon receiving the summons and complaint from the Secretary of Statei promptly sent it to their counsel. Upon receipt of the pleadings, defense counsel. drafted and filed an answer on behalf of 3 of 6 [*FILED: 4] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/04/2021 12:40 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 INDEX NO. 502451/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/04/2021 the Provider Defendants within the 30-day timeframe set forth in CPLR 320 (a). However, defense counsel explains that he "did not learn that Plaintiff had filed a Summons and Complaint against Defendants until after the Court had rendered a default judgment against Defendants on November 14, 2019." Defense counsel further affinns that '.'any additional delay in the drafting and/or filing; of Defendants' Answer that occurred was caused by the limited resources of said law finn." Defense counsel asserts thatthe Provider Defenda1'1ts "always intended to defend this matter until a final decision was reached on the merits, and [their] failure to timely appear was not the result of any attempt to delaythe resolution of this case or otherwise avoid service_;, Defense counsel asserts that the Provider Defendants have a meritorious defense to this action. under New· York's Insurance Department Regulations, ·including 11 NYCRR § 65-3.8, which require an insurer to pay a claim or issue a denial within thirty (30) days of receipt of the proof of claim. Defense counsel explains that "[a]n insurer that fails to comply with the statutory 30-day period is precluded from asserting a defense against payinent of the ciaim." Defense counsel argues that State Farm failed to comply with the timeftaines set forth in the foregoing Regulations and, consequently, State Farm is precluded from denying the Provider Defendants' claims. Defense counsel further contends that State Farm's rationale for denying the Provider Defendants' claims based on art alleged fraud in the procureme11t of the insurance policy are meritless and based on pure speculation. 4 4 of 6 [*FILED: 5] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/04/2021 12:40 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 INDEX NO. 502451/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/04/2021 State Fann, in oppositio n, asserts that it timely served the Provider Defendants with the summons and complain t through .the New York Secretar y of State and that the Provider Defenda nts "are curiously silent as to the additional service that the Plaintiff completed on each of them." State Fann's counsel affinns that "[i]n addition to serving the [Provider] Defenda nts pursuant to 13CL § 306, each of the [Provider] Defendants were also served with a Notice of Service pursuant to CPLR § 3215 (g} (4) (i)." State Farm's counsel notes that the Provider Defendants are ''silent as to the fact that they were each served with the Motion for Default Judgmen t in this matter, which gave them notice of this action.'; State Farm also argues that in the absence ofan affidavit from any of the . . Provider Defenda nts,.their motion to vacate the default judgmen t should be rejected. State Farm further argues that the Provider Defenda nts' motion to vacate their default should be denied· because they have failed to demonst rate that they have a potentially meritorious defense to this action. State Farm contends that it submitte d admissib le evidence in its motion for a default judgmen t proving thaUts insured, Vernon Gantt, made material misrepresentations at the· time he procured the insurance pol icy, "A party seeking to vacate a default in appearin g or answerin g pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) {l ), and thereupon to serve a late answer, must demonstrate a reasonab le excuse for the default and a potentia lly meritorious defense to the action" (92-18 149th Street Realty Corp. v Stolz berg, 152 AD3d 560, 562 [2017] [internal quotatio ns omitted]). Furthermore, where a default in appearing results from law offi.ce failure, the court inay 5 5 of 6 [*FILED: 6] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/04/2021 12:40 PM INDEX NO. 502451/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/04/2021 "exercise its discretion in the interest ofjµstice to excuse delay ot default ... '~ pursuantto CPLR2005 (see JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA. v Ru,sso, 121 AD3d 1048~ 1049 [2014]}. Here, the Provider Defendants have demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their default based qn a delay in receiving the summons and complaint from the New York Secretary of State and their counsel's law office failure. In addition, the Provider Defendants have established a potentially meritorious defense to this action based on the Nf;.':w York Insurance Regulat1ons. In the court's discretion, the Provider Defendants' motion to vacate their default is granted since it was not willful and it was due to excusable law office failure, Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Provider Defendants' motion (in mot. seq. two) is granted, this court's November 14, 2019 order and judgment ishereby vacated, and State Farm is compelled to accept the Provider Defendants' answer to the complaint. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. ENTER, . 6 of 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.