Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing timely notice of claim coverage, with 30 published articles analyzing timely notice of claim issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
“Due Consideration” Requirement Changes No-Fault Late Notice Defense Strategy
The landscape of no-fault insurance claim defenses shifted significantly with a 2011 New York appellate ruling that introduced a crucial procedural requirement. Insurance companies can no longer simply assert that a healthcare provider’s explanation for late submission was inadequate—they must now demonstrate they gave “due consideration” to the provider’s excuse.
This development affects how insurers handle violations of both the 45-day rule for initial claim submissions and the 30-day rule for supplemental documentation. The change represents a meaningful shift from purely procedural compliance toward a more substantive review standard, requiring insurers to engage with providers’ explanations rather than dismiss them outright.
Understanding this requirement is essential for both healthcare providers submitting claims and insurers defending against late notice allegations in the no-fault system.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
Bronx Expert Radiology, P.C. v NYC Tr. Auth., 2011 NY Slip Op 51571(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2011)
Prima facie defenses to a 45-day or 30-day rule violation now requires “due consideration” to the explanation the provider gave. So the affidavit now reads: “We considered the excuse, and found it unavailing because….” That should do the trick.
“Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied as defendant failed to establish that it gave “due consideration” to the explanation offered by plaintiff for the late submission of its no-fault claims as required by the insurance regulations (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5; Matter of Medical Socy. of State of NY v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 863 ; Bronx Expert Radiology v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 23 Misc 3d 133, 2009 NY Slip Op 50747 ).”
Key Takeaway
Insurance companies defending against late no-fault claims must now affirmatively demonstrate they gave “due consideration” to healthcare providers’ explanations for timely notice violations. This procedural shift requires insurers to substantively address excuses rather than simply asserting they were insufficient, fundamentally changing how prima facie defenses are established in late notice disputes.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 post, New York’s no-fault regulations have undergone multiple amendments, including updates to 11 NYCRR 65-3 regarding timely notice requirements and procedural standards. The “due consideration” standard for late notice defenses may have been refined through subsequent regulatory changes or court interpretations. Practitioners should verify current provisions of Section 65-3.5 and related subsections to ensure compliance with current procedural requirements for late notice defenses.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More Timely notice of claim Analysis
Mastering Medical Expenses in Personal Injury Claims
A practical New York injury-bill checklist: identify the payer, track bills and denials, document future care, and review repayment demands before settlement.
Dec 10, 2024
Reasonable Excuse and the 45-Day Rule: Why Clerical Error Won't Save a Misdirected No-Fault Claim
Karina K. Acupuncture v Hertz: a clerical error is no reasonable excuse for mailing NF-3 forms to the wrong insurer under New York's 45-day no-fault claim rule.
Dec 18, 2018
Unitrin is now followed in the Fourth Department
Fourth Department follows Unitrin ruling on timely notice requirements, allowing default judgment when insureds fail to provide written accident notice as condition precedent.
Jun 21, 2015
Late written notice not excused
Court denied excuse for late written notice when attorney failed to explain why claim was initially submitted to wrong carrier, establishing prima facie case for summary judgment.
Apr 1, 2013
The No-Fault One-Year Rule: The First Appellate Decision to Interpret It
Habif v Kemper, the first appellate decision on New York's no-fault one-year rule, turned on a missing stipulated fact about treatment within a year of loss.
Jun 10, 2010
Triable issue of fact: 45-day rule
NY appellate court rules that insurance company's late receipt of claim forms creates triable issue of fact regarding timely mailing under 45-day rule.
Jun 3, 2018Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a timely notice of claim matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
