Key Takeaway
MVAIC faces another courtroom defeat in S & L Med. P.C. v MVAIC, where untimely claim denials failed to protect against qualified no-fault benefit challenges.
The Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) serves as New York’s safety net insurer, providing coverage when accidents involve uninsured vehicles or hit-and-run incidents. However, MVAIC has faced increasing scrutiny from courts regarding their claim handling practices, particularly around timely denials and defensive strategies in no-fault insurance disputes.
In S & L Med. P.C. v MVAIC, the Appellate Term delivered another blow to MVAIC’s litigation strategy. While the case involved technical issues around claim denials and assignor qualifications, it represents part of a broader pattern of MVAIC struggling to successfully defend claims in court. This ongoing string of losses has drawn criticism from legal observers who question MVAIC’s effectiveness in protecting the state’s insurance fund.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Some have said no-pain, no gain. But, how much pain does one have to endure before it becomes apparent that “something is rotten in the State of Denmark.”
S & L Med. P.C. v MVAIC, 2010 NY Slip Op 51885(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2010)
“While MVAIC was not precluded by its conceded untimely denial of plaintiff’s claim from asserting the defense that plaintiff’s assignor was not qualified to receive no-fault benefits (see Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667 ), MVAIC failed to establish that defense at trial.”
Also, at the rate things are going for MVAIC, this case should have been named “SNL Medical, P.C. v. MVAIC.” This comedy show has to end. It is embarrassing to the defense bar.
Key Takeaway
This decision illustrates a critical principle in New York no-fault law: even when an insurer like MVAIC makes an untimely claim denial, they can still raise certain defenses at trial. However, they must actually prove those defenses with sufficient evidence. MVAIC’s failure to establish that the medical provider’s assignor was unqualified for benefits resulted in another courtroom loss, continuing their troubling litigation track record.
Related Articles
- MVAIC gets hit again at the Appellate Term, First Department
- MVAIC continues to dig its grave at the Appellate Division
- She really was not an EIP
- Documentation shows wrong insurance carrier was sued
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post, MVAIC’s operational procedures, claim handling requirements, and defense strategies may have been modified through regulatory amendments, statutory changes, or evolving case law precedents. Practitioners should verify current MVAIC provisions, applicable denial timeframes, and procedural requirements when handling uninsured motorist claims or MVAIC coverage disputes.
