This case should be receiving comments because it is extremely important. Oh yes it is. Because every EUO No Show can now be litigated with caselaw support on the issue of whether or not the request was justified by a reasonable objective basis. That’s the standard according to the regs but we all know that the regs can be ignored. Now we have a respected Jurist saying that this particular reg cannot be ignored. No reasonable objective basis no tolling. And the Court’s analysis is factual so we have a test. An insurance company cannot simply say we had a reasonable objective basis. They have to demonstrate it with facts. Oh what a can of worms. Because most EUOs are designed to generate the no show.
Ever notice how the results differ when a real judge — defined as a judge that really applies the rules of evidence and what constitutes proof — handles a case.
It seems that if it were not for courts that have discarded the above an insurance company would get nowhere.
Anyone seen Zuppa. He has been missing for days and the folks over at the Pit are starting to worry.
A good article … but … no … no … no … We’re mixing apples and oranges here. Scheduling and distance. No. The regs say you need a reasonable objective basis for asking for the additional verification. We have a Court saying that you have to demonstrate it. That’s the relevant law.
If you do not demonstrate reasonable objective basis you did not have one and your request is a nullity.
There is a Supreme Court decision up in Albany that says the same. (We’ll get it next week)
I don’t care if you don’t have to tell the claimant or file it with the department. You have to tell the court.
Zuppa is presumed dead. Email FightInsurerFraud@gmail.com and a member of Zuppa’s Pit will send you a PDF of the case. It is not a declaratory judgment case. It has an excellent discussion of EUO abuses that covers many bases.
Supreme Court. The case was won by the man who gave us years of great attorney’s fees — LMK before the Ct of Appeals.
It does no good to cite it because its not published. Do you want to drive to Albany like Zuppa had too to get the whole record. FightInsurerFraud@gmail.com … we will send you the decision. We’ll send you the motions; the exhibits. Go to Zuppa’s Pit and see the ideas of what to do with the EUO based motions to dismiss — some of the new caselaw and Opinion letter featured here — all of it from here — is on there too.
Or forget that and just look here but go to FightInsurerFraud and it will be sent. No gimmicks. No advertisements. That will be the only email you get in return.
This case should be receiving comments because it is extremely important. Oh yes it is. Because every EUO No Show can now be litigated with caselaw support on the issue of whether or not the request was justified by a reasonable objective basis. That’s the standard according to the regs but we all know that the regs can be ignored. Now we have a respected Jurist saying that this particular reg cannot be ignored. No reasonable objective basis no tolling. And the Court’s analysis is factual so we have a test. An insurance company cannot simply say we had a reasonable objective basis. They have to demonstrate it with facts. Oh what a can of worms. Because most EUOs are designed to generate the no show.
Ever notice how the results differ when a real judge — defined as a judge that really applies the rules of evidence and what constitutes proof — handles a case.
It seems that if it were not for courts that have discarded the above an insurance company would get nowhere.
Anyone seen Zuppa. He has been missing for days and the folks over at the Pit are starting to worry.
A good article … but … no … no … no … We’re mixing apples and oranges here. Scheduling and distance. No. The regs say you need a reasonable objective basis for asking for the additional verification. We have a Court saying that you have to demonstrate it. That’s the relevant law.
If you do not demonstrate reasonable objective basis you did not have one and your request is a nullity.
There is a Supreme Court decision up in Albany that says the same. (We’ll get it next week)
I don’t care if you don’t have to tell the claimant or file it with the department. You have to tell the court.
mr. zuppa, ever get the supreme court decision from albany to which you refer in your comment above? care to post?
Mr. Jaffe:
Zuppa is presumed dead. Email FightInsurerFraud@gmail.com and a member of Zuppa’s Pit will send you a PDF of the case. It is not a declaratory judgment case. It has an excellent discussion of EUO abuses that covers many bases.
Supreme Court. The case was won by the man who gave us years of great attorney’s fees — LMK before the Ct of Appeals.
Venerable Zuppa, please leave deliver the Supreme Court decision to us.
It does no good to cite it because its not published. Do you want to drive to Albany like Zuppa had too to get the whole record. FightInsurerFraud@gmail.com … we will send you the decision. We’ll send you the motions; the exhibits. Go to Zuppa’s Pit and see the ideas of what to do with the EUO based motions to dismiss — some of the new caselaw and Opinion letter featured here — all of it from here — is on there too.
Or forget that and just look here but go to FightInsurerFraud and it will be sent. No gimmicks. No advertisements. That will be the only email you get in return.