Key Takeaway
Appellate Term Second Department rules MVAIC's prima facie case requirements match other no-fault insurance providers in Turnpike Medical decision.
Turnpike Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 2011 NY Slip Op 51717(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
Well, perhaps it was only a matter of time before the Appellate Term, Second Dept. revisited its stance regarding MVAIC. I cannot honestly say it is a bad thing either. I never understood why they were able to do things that no other carrier could do.
“On appeal, defendant contends that plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff’s assignor was not a qualified person since he failed to provide defendant with written proof of lack of insurance. This argument lacks merit because plaintiff’s assignor’s status as a qualified person is not dependent upon defendant’s receipt of these documents (see Insurance Law § 5202 ; Liberty Orthopedics, PLLC v MVAIC, 20 Misc 3d 136, 2008 NY Slip Op 51533 ). As plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429 )…
Golia, dissent:
I am constrained to agree with the majority with regard to the issue of what constitutes a plaintiff’s prima facie case in a no-fault action brought against the Motor Vehicle Accident [*2]Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) in view of the Appellate Division’s ruling in New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (12 AD3d 429 ; see also Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667 [“the burden is on MVAIC to prove its lack-of-coverage defense”]).
Anybody know what happened to Turnpike medical? There were off Hempstead Tpke, right near District Court. They have been out of business for awhile. It always looked like a fun place to get therapy. I am saddened that I never got the opportunity to enjoy the turnpike experience.
Related Articles
- Understanding collateral estoppel in New York no-fault insurance cases
- When appellate division grants summary judgment for non-insured events
- Proving intentional accident claims in New York insurance law
- Material misrepresentations in insurance: preponderance vs intent standards
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 decision, various amendments to Insurance Law § 5202 and related no-fault regulations may have modified the standards for establishing prima facie cases against MVAIC and documentation requirements for qualified person status. Practitioners should verify current statutory provisions and recent appellate precedent regarding MVAIC’s evidentiary burdens and procedural requirements.
