Key Takeaway
How equitable considerations are changing NY no-fault insurance law. Expert analysis from Long Island personal injury attorneys. Call 516-750-0595.
Understanding Equitable Considerations in New York No-Fault Insurance Law
The landscape of no-fault insurance law in New York is constantly evolving, with courts regularly interpreting and reinterpreting the complex regulatory framework that governs these cases. For accident victims and healthcare providers in Long Island and New York City, understanding these nuances can mean the difference between successful recovery of benefits and costly denials. Today’s discussion focuses on a groundbreaking decision that introduces equitable considerations into what has traditionally been a rule-driven system.
The Infinity Health Products Decision: A Paradigm Shift
Today, the Appellate Division, in Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v Eveready Ins. Co. 2009 NY Slip Op 08585 (2d Dept. 2009) quite surprisingly held that a premature follow-up additional verification request was sufficient to toll the 30-day period to pay or deny a bill.
In this case, the follow-up additional verification request was four days premature, i.e., sent on day 27. The Civil Court, as affirmed by the Appellate Term, granted Plaintiff summary judgment. In dissent, Justice Golia (21 Misc.3d 1 ) held that Defendant, as a matter of law, should have been granted summary judgment. He held, in pertinent part, the following:
“The majority simply states that “ontrary to defendant’s contention, the case of New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (287 AD2d 699 ) does not 5 permit defendant to disregard the regulation governing the timing of a follow-up request for verification.” The majority makes this finding even though the cited Appellate Division case deals with a verification request that was dated October 5, 1999 and a follow-up request that was sent and dated November 1, 1999. Certainly, the first day of November is less than 30 days from the fifth day of October.” Id.
The Appellate Division agreed with the result Justice Golia reached, and even cited the above case in coming to its holding. But, there is a glaring subtlety that should cause people like me who live for “bright line rules” to cringe.
First, one needs to observe what the first (and only) decretal paragraph of the Appellate Division’s order states:
“ORDERED that the order dated July 10, 2008, is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, is reversed, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint is denied, and the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.”
The motion of Eveready was not granted on the law. In fact, the Appellate Division’s discussion of this case solidifies that statement, as observed herein:
“Although the defendant in this case did not strictly comply with the time limitation set forth in the rule regarding the submission of a second verification request, under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff is estopped from claiming that the defendant is precluded from asserting any defense to the claim. It would be inequitable to award summary judgment to the plaintiff, which ignored two verification requests, merely because the defendant, slightly prematurely, sent its second verification request a mere 3 days before the expiration of a full 30 days after the first verification request had been sent.”
As you can see, precepts of “equity” and the Appellate Division’s observation that the disposition of this case was guided “under the circumstances of this case” should make every reader of this article scratch their collective heads. I think this case may be a double edged sword, because if equity concerns are viable, then all the practices of the providers and the carriers are opened to a new level of scrutiny. What was a rule laden system that was guided by the letter of the regulations and offered predictable outcomes, has now become a paradigm that has lost a certain level of foreseeability. What we gain on one hand, we lose with the other.
Roy Murra at Coverage Counsel has an interesting perspective on this case, which you should read.
The Implications for Long Island and NYC Personal Injury Cases
For accident victims in Nassau County, Suffolk County, Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and the Bronx, this decision represents a significant shift in how no-fault insurance disputes may be resolved. The introduction of equitable considerations into no-fault law creates both opportunities and challenges for those seeking to recover legitimate medical expenses and lost wages following an automobile accident.
What This Means for Healthcare Providers
Healthcare providers throughout the New York metropolitan area who treat accident victims must now navigate a more complex landscape when dealing with insurance carriers. The traditional approach of strict adherence to regulatory timelines may no longer be the sole determining factor in benefit disputes. Insurance companies may find themselves held to a higher standard of good faith dealing, particularly when they fail to respond to verification requests in a timely manner.
Impact on Insurance Carrier Practices
Insurance carriers operating in New York State must reassess their claim handling procedures in light of this decision. The court’s emphasis on equitable considerations suggests that carriers cannot simply rely on technical compliance with regulations while ignoring the substance of their interactions with providers and claimants. This may lead to more careful documentation of claim handling practices and greater emphasis on good faith communication.
Understanding No-Fault Verification Requirements in New York
The no-fault insurance system in New York was designed to provide prompt payment of medical expenses and lost wages to accident victims, regardless of fault. However, the system includes various safeguards to prevent fraud and ensure that only legitimate claims are paid. One of these safeguards is the verification process, which allows insurance carriers to request additional documentation to support claims.
The Traditional Framework
Under the traditional interpretation of New York’s no-fault regulations, insurance carriers had specific time limits within which they could request additional verification. These bright-line rules were intended to provide certainty and predictability to all parties involved in the no-fault system. Providers knew when they could expect payment, and carriers understood their rights and obligations regarding claim investigation.
The Challenge of Rigid Rule Application
The Infinity Health Products decision highlights the tension between rigid rule application and fundamental fairness. When a provider completely ignores legitimate verification requests, should they be rewarded simply because the insurance carrier’s second verification request was sent three days early? The court’s answer suggests that equity and fair dealing should play a role in these determinations.
Practical Considerations for Personal Injury Practice
For personal injury attorneys serving Long Island and New York City, this decision opens new avenues for challenging insurance carrier conduct. When carriers engage in questionable claim handling practices, arguments based on equity and good faith dealing may now carry more weight than purely technical regulatory interpretations.
Building Stronger No-Fault Cases
Attorneys can now emphasize the overall conduct of insurance carriers when pursuing no-fault benefits. Rather than focusing solely on regulatory compliance, practitioners should document patterns of behavior that may support arguments based on equitable considerations. This includes maintaining detailed records of all communications with carriers and their responses to verification requests.
Strategic Implications for Settlement Negotiations
The introduction of equitable considerations may also impact settlement negotiations in no-fault disputes. Carriers may be more willing to resolve cases where their conduct could be viewed as inequitable, even if they technically complied with regulatory requirements. This could lead to more favorable outcomes for providers and claimants in appropriate cases.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Infinity Health Products decision mean for my no-fault claim?
This decision suggests that courts may now consider the overall fairness of insurance carrier conduct, not just technical compliance with regulations. If your insurance carrier has engaged in questionable practices while handling your no-fault claim, this decision may provide additional grounds for challenging their actions.
How will this affect verification request timing in the future?
While the decision doesn’t eliminate timing requirements for verification requests, it suggests that courts may consider the circumstances surrounding these requests. Insurance carriers who send premature verification requests while claimants completely ignore legitimate requests may face scrutiny based on equity principles.
Should healthcare providers change their approach to verification requests?
Healthcare providers should continue to respond promptly and completely to legitimate verification requests. However, they may now have stronger arguments against carriers who engage in questionable practices, even if those practices technically comply with regulatory timelines.
Will this decision affect other areas of no-fault law?
The introduction of equitable considerations into no-fault law may have broader implications beyond verification requests. Other areas where carriers rely heavily on technical compliance while ignoring substance may face similar scrutiny in future cases.
How can I protect my rights under this new framework?
Maintain detailed documentation of all interactions with insurance carriers, respond promptly to legitimate verification requests, and consult with experienced no-fault counsel when carriers engage in questionable practices. The emphasis on equity means that the overall pattern of conduct may be more important than individual technical violations.
Conclusion: Navigating the New Landscape
The Infinity Health Products decision represents a significant evolution in New York’s no-fault insurance law. While the introduction of equitable considerations may create uncertainty in some areas, it also provides new tools for challenging unfair insurance carrier conduct. For accident victims in Long Island and New York City, this development may lead to more favorable outcomes in no-fault disputes, particularly when carriers engage in questionable claim handling practices.
As this area of law continues to evolve, it’s essential for all parties involved in the no-fault system to adapt their practices accordingly. Healthcare providers must continue to meet their obligations while documenting carrier conduct that may violate principles of equity and good faith dealing. Insurance carriers must reassess their claim handling procedures to ensure they meet not just the letter of the law, but its spirit as well.
If you’re dealing with a no-fault insurance dispute in Long Island or New York City, it’s more important than ever to work with experienced counsel who understands both the traditional regulatory framework and these emerging equitable considerations. The landscape may be changing, but with proper guidance, you can navigate these changes successfully.
For expert assistance with your no-fault insurance claim or personal injury case, call 516-750-0595 to speak with an experienced attorney who can help protect your rights under this evolving legal framework.
Related Articles
- The first case interpreting Infinity v. Eveready
- Understanding verification requests and mailing requirements in New York no-fault claims
- Procedural fairness concerns in no-fault insurance litigation
- When technical verification requirements override common sense
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2009 decision discussing equitable considerations and verification procedures, New York’s no-fault regulations have undergone multiple amendments, including revisions to verification requirements, timeframe provisions, and procedural standards. The Appellate Division has issued numerous decisions that may have refined or altered the principles established in Infinity Health Products, and practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and case law interpretations when analyzing verification timing and equitable considerations in no-fault claims.
