Skip to main content

Custom Orthotics, Ltd. v. Government Employees Insurance

N.Y. Civ. Ct.July 27, 2009
Mixed ResultGovernment Employees Insurance Company$676.98 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Viscovtch
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
bench trial

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

Court ruled in favor of plaintiff Custom Orthotics in the Graulan matter for $676.98 plus statutory interest, attorneys fees and costs, finding the insurer failed to properly follow up on an insufficient verification response. In the Iori matter, court ruled in favor of defendant, finding plaintiff's verification response was insufficient and defendant had no obligation to respond further.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** This case involved Custom Orthotics, a medical device company, suing Government Employees Insurance Company over payment disputes for two separate insurance claims (the Graulan matter and the Iori matter). The insurance company had requested additional verification information for both claims, but disagreements arose about whether the company provided sufficient documentation and whether the insurer properly handled the responses. **What the Court Decided** The court split its decision. In the Graulan matter, the judge ruled that Custom Orthotics won and awarded them $676.98 plus interest, attorney fees, and costs. The court found that even though the company's initial verification response was incomplete, the insurance company failed to properly follow up as required. In the Iori matter, however, the court sided with the insurance company, determining that Custom Orthotics hadn't provided adequate verification and the insurer had no duty to request more information. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling shows that insurance companies must follow proper procedures when handling claims, even when initial paperwork is incomplete. Workers dealing with insurance disputes should know that insurers can't simply ignore claims due to minor documentation issues—they have obligations to communicate clearly about what's needed.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.