VTL 313(2)(a) not complied withFebruary 11, 2016

Advanced Med. Care, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50130(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
While defendant’s motion was based on its alleged termination of the insurance policy in question, defendant failed to sufficiently demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it had filed a copy of the notice of termination of the insurance policy with the Department of Motor Vehicles within 30 days of the effective date of the termination, as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (2) (a) (see Matter of Progressive Classic Ins. Co. v Kitchen, 46 AD3d 333 [2007]). Therefore, defendant has not established that the termination of the insurance policy was effective with respect to plaintiff’s assignor, who was not the named insured and who was not shown to be a member of the named insured’s household”

The filing requirement is required to protect on third party claims and against first-party claims where a true “stranger to the policy” seeks benefits.   The Kitchen case is really the standard bearer as to what is necessary to plead and prove compliance with the filing requirement.

Leave a Reply