Key Takeaway
Court ruling explains when denial of claim forms don't need business records exception - hearsay rules in no-fault insurance evidence cases on Long Island.
Quality Health Prods., Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50990(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
“Plaintiff argues, among other things, that defendant’s motion should have been denied because defendant failed to establish that its denial of claim forms constituted evidence in admissible form pursuant to the business records exception to the rule against hearsay as set forth in CPLR 4518. This argument is unavailing. Defendant did not offer the denial of claim forms to establish the truth of the matters asserted therein, such as the lack of medical necessity of the services rendered, but rather to show that such denials were sent, and that, therefore, the claims were denied. As the denial of claim forms were not offered for a hearsay purpose, they did not need to qualify as business records (see e.g. Dawson v Raimon Realty Corp., 303 AD2d 708 ; Splawn v Lextaj Corp., 197 AD2d 479 ).
Plaintiff raises the same argument regarding the notice of cancellation offered by defendant with respect to the insurance policy issued to Manuel Espinal which defendant had canceled. Again, since this document was not being offered for a hearsay purpose, it did not need to qualify as a business record. As plaintiff’s remaining contentions are meritless, the order is affirmed.”
In St. Vincent Medical, P.C. v. Mercury (App. Term 2d Dept. 2009) and NY&P v. Elrac Inc.(2d Dept. 2004), it was held that the denials constituted business records despite the objections of the respective plaintiffs. Also, Dan Medical holds that a bill has to be placed into evidence to satisfy a provider’s prima facie case. So, I am confused by this one.
CORRECTION – See, St. Vincent Medical Care, P.C. v. Mercury Cas. Co. 23 Misc.3d 135(A)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009)(“The affidavit of defendant’s claim representative set forth the affiant’s personal knowledge of defendant’s business practices and procedures, so as to lay a foundation for the admission of the documents annexed to the affidavit as business records (see CPLR 4518; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 ”).
The second case I cited above should be: Hospital for Joint Diseases v. Elrac, Inc. 11 A.D.3d 43 (2d Dept. 2004)(“We expressly reject the argument of NY & P Hospital that the affidavit of a claims representative based on records maintained by an insurer in the ordinary course of business did not constitute admissible evidence sufficient to establish a valid defense (see DeLeon v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 306 AD2d 146 ; First Interstate Credit Alliance v Sokol, 179 AD2d 583, 584 ). Personal knowledge of such documents, their history, or specific content are not necessarily required of a document custodian (see DeLeon v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., supra”)
There is another case: Montefiore Medical Center v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 31 A.D.3d 724 (2d Dept. 2006)(“Contrary to the contention of the plaintiff Montefiore Medical Center, the affidavit of the defendant’s claims representative based on records maintained by the insurer in the ordinary course of business was sufficient to establish the defense (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v. ELRAC, 11 A.D.3d 432, 433, 783 N.Y.S.2d 612). Similarly, the documents submitted on the cross motion demonstrate that the insurer effectively canceled the policy (see Hughson v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 110 A.D.2d 1072, 488 N.Y.S.2d 930″).
Related Articles
- Understanding the business records exception to hearsay rules
- How the business records rule was restored in NY personal injury law
- Third-party billing records and the Carothers standard
- Complete guide to CPLR 4518(a) business records requirements
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 decision, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone significant amendments, including updates to claims processing procedures and documentation requirements under 11 NYCRR Part 65. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding denial notice requirements and evidentiary standards, as regulatory changes may have affected the admissibility and procedural handling of denial of claim forms in no-fault litigation.
