Key Takeaway
Court dismisses no-fault case due to improper service of process and failure to serve within 120-day deadline, highlighting critical procedural requirements.
Service of process requirements in New York no-fault insurance litigation are strictly enforced, and even seemingly minor procedural missteps can result in case dismissal. This reality became apparent in a recent Appellate Term decision involving Gateway Medical, where a medical provider’s lawsuit against Progressive Insurance was dismissed due to fundamental jurisdictional defects.
The case illustrates two critical procedural requirements that practitioners must navigate carefully: proper service under CPLR 312-a and compliance with the 120-day service deadline under Civil Court Act section 411. When insurance carriers challenge service of process procedures, courts will scrutinize whether all statutory requirements were met. Failed service attempts can leave plaintiffs without jurisdiction over defendants, regardless of the merits of the underlying claim.
Understanding these procedural deadlines is essential for medical providers seeking reimbursement from no-fault insurers, as missed deadlines can result in dismissal without prejudice, forcing practitioners to restart the entire litigation process.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Gateway Med., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51533(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
“As it is uncontroverted that service of process was not effectuated in June 2005 pursuant to CPLR 312-a, the Civil Court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over defendant at that time (see e.g. Klein v Educational Loan Servicing, LLC, 71 AD3d 957, 958 ). Plaintiff purchased an index number and filed its summons and complaint in 2008 (see CCA 400, eff Sept. 8, 2005), but failed to serve a copy of the summons and complaint upon defendant within 120 days after filing as required by CCA 411. Consequently, jurisdiction over defendant was [*2]never acquired (CCA 400 ). Accordingly, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint should have been granted without prejudice (see CCA 411).”
I dislike when carriers refuse to accept 312-a service, unless it is done right before the statute expires.
Key Takeaway
Insurance carriers’ refusal to accept proper service under CPLR 312-a, particularly when done well before statute of limitations deadlines, creates unnecessary procedural hurdles for medical providers. However, courts will still enforce strict compliance with service requirements and filing deadlines, making dismissal inevitable when these procedural steps are not properly followed.
