Key Takeaway
Third Department case analyzes proof requirements for insurance carriers demonstrating lack of coverage, highlighting triable issues of fact in no-fault claims.
I was really close to blogging about this interesting Third Department case involving a writ of prohibition that was actually granted, preventing the Sullivan County District Attorney from retrying this poor hunter who had bad aim. (Matter of Robar v Labuda, 2011 NY Slip Op 03319 . But, how many who read this are concerned with that stuff?
Anyway, an interesting case arose involving the proof required to demonstrate the failure of an insurance carrier to prima facie demonstrate lack of coverage while, interestingly, raising an issue of fact as to same.
Astoria Quality Med. Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50743(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011):
Here was the proof that was presented: “Defendant’s opposition papers consisted of a police accident report indicating that plaintiff’s assignor, Reuven Hafizov, was the operator of a vehicle registered to Aharon Shimonov and insured by defendant; a copy of an application for no-fault benefits seeking benefits under a purported policy issued to the purported policyholder under a purported policy number; claim denial forms denying the bills received by defendant because defendant’s records indicated that Aharon Shimonov did not have a policy with defendant; and an affidavit of a claims representative stating that a search of defendant’s records revealed that State Farm did not issue an insurance policy to Aharon Shimonov under the purported policy number.”
What was missing? An affidavit from an underwriter.
Interesting observation also: “Contrary to the finding of the Civil Court, defendant was not required to describe in detail the steps which it had taken in searching its records in order to demonstrate that there was no coverage in effect at the time of the accident (see Lenox Hill Radiology v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 28 Misc 3d 141, 2010 NY Slip Op 51638 ).”
Finally, for purposes of Mr.Gottlieb’s CPLR blog and something that is quite interesting: “With regard to defendant’s contention that the Civil Court violated the law of the case doctrine, even if this contention is correct, this court is not bound by that doctrine and may consider the motion on its merits”
Related Articles
- Standards for proving there is no policy of insurance in effect
- When summary judgment is granted because the loss was not an insured event
- How absence of business record entries can affect coverage determinations
- Collateral estoppel issues in coverage declarations from co-defendant defaults
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 decision, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and coverage verification procedures may have been modified through regulatory amendments or court decisions. Additionally, the procedural requirements for demonstrating prima facie lack of coverage in summary judgment motions may have evolved. Practitioners should verify current provisions of the Insurance Law and applicable regulations when addressing coverage disputes and burden of proof requirements.
