Key Takeaway
Court rules that witness who wasn't present during mailing cannot prove proper service, highlighting importance of firsthand testimony in no-fault cases.
Proving Mailing in No-Fault Insurance Cases: The Critical Importance of Firsthand Testimony
In New York’s no-fault insurance system, the burden of proving proper mailing often determines whether an insurance company’s denial is considered timely. This seemingly straightforward requirement becomes complex when insurance companies rely on witnesses who lack personal knowledge of the actual mailing process. A recent Appellate Term decision illustrates why courts require firsthand testimony to establish proper service.
The case demonstrates a fundamental principle: only witnesses who were actually present during the mailing process can testify to its occurrence. This requirement stems from basic evidence law — witnesses can only testify to facts within their personal knowledge. When an insurance company’s claims representative begins work after the alleged mailing date, their testimony about mailing procedures carries no weight.
This evidentiary standard affects various aspects of no-fault litigation, from denial timelines to certified mail requirements. Insurance companies must ensure their witnesses have actual knowledge of the events they’re asked to verify.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Exclusive Physical Therapy, P.C. v MVAIC, 2012 NY Slip Op 50862(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)
“We note that, in his affidavit, defendant’s claims representative stated that he had begun working for defendant after the denial of claim forms at issue had allegedly been mailed by defendant. Consequently, defendant failed to show that its denial of claim forms had been timely mailed”
I suspect one cannot travel in time capsule to learn how the process used to be. Logical.
Key Takeaway
Courts require witnesses with personal knowledge to prove mailing occurred. Insurance companies cannot rely on employees who started work after the alleged mailing date to establish proper service. This decision reinforces that foundational evidence rules apply even in routine no-fault insurance disputes.
