Case remanded to Civil Court to determine whether interest was tolled

No-fault insurance cases often involve complex calculations when determining interest on overdue payments to healthcare providers. The interplay between statutory requirements and tolling provisions can significantly impact the final amount owed, making precise legal analysis crucial for both providers and insurers.

In medical billing disputes under New York No-Fault Insurance Law, courts must carefully examine whether interest should be calculated from the original due date or whether certain circumstances warrant tolling the interest period. This becomes particularly important when substantial time has passed since the original billing, as compound interest can dramatically increase the total amount due.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Devonshire Surgical Facility v American Transit Insurance Company, 2011 NY Slip Op 51660(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2011)

“laintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their claims for first-party no-fault benefits by submitting proof that the prescribed statutory billing forms had been mailed and received by defendant on January 22, 2001, and that payment was overdue”

“We remand the matter to Civil Court for calculation of the appropriate interest due plaintiff on these claims, taking into account the applicability, if any, of the tolling provisions of Insurance Law § 5106(a) (see 11 NYCRR 65.15 ; LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 12 NY3d 217, 223 ; Brooklyn Chiropractic Assoc., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 17 Misc 3d 13, 15 ).”

I guess when compound interest is in play, we see the worst in people.

Key Takeaway

This case demonstrates the critical importance of proper interest calculations in no-fault insurance disputes. While the court established the provider’s right to payment, the complex tolling provisions under Insurance Law § 5106(a) required remand for precise calculation, highlighting how procedural details can significantly impact the final judgment amount in medical billing cases.

Related Articles

• Understanding the CPLR 3212(g) paradigm for summary judgment motions
• Critical timing rules under CPLR 3212(a) for summary judgment motions
• When reasonable excuse defenses apply despite jurisdictional challenges
• No-fault verification requirements and compliance standards
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 post, Insurance Law § 5106 and its implementing regulations under 11 NYCRR Part 65 have undergone several amendments affecting interest calculations and tolling provisions in no-fault cases. Additionally, court interpretations of interest tolling in medical billing disputes may have evolved through subsequent appellate decisions. Practitioners should verify current statutory provisions and recent case law when analyzing interest calculations in no-fault insurance matters.