CAN-O

Jurisdictional challenges are a common defense strategy in no-fault insurance litigation, particularly when out-of-state healthcare providers are involved. These challenges often arise in declaratory judgment actions where insurance carriers seek court determinations about coverage obligations. Understanding how courts handle such jurisdictional arguments is crucial for both providers and insurers navigating the complex landscape of New York’s no-fault insurance system.

The case of American Transit Insurance Co. v. Cano demonstrates how courts evaluate jurisdictional defenses when they appear to lack genuine merit. This decision provides valuable guidance on when jurisdictional challenges will succeed and when they will be viewed as tactical maneuvers rather than legitimate legal arguments.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

American Transit Ins. Co. v. Cano, 2012 NY Slip Op 31608(U)(Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2012)

A New Jersey Hospital who renders treatment upon an EIP submits bills to the insurance carrier. The bills are overdue. EIP fails to comply with a condition precedent to coverage. Insurance carrier brings a dreaded DJ action against the EIP and all providers who have the right to collect no-fault benefits.

Hospital moves to dismiss based upon the disingenuous argument that there is no jurisdiction. The motion is denied in a nice decision by Justice Tingling. See the link above.

Plf Attorney: Law Office of James F. Sullivan

Def Attorney: Unknown

Key Takeaway

This decision reinforces that courts will scrutinize jurisdictional challenges for legitimacy rather than accepting them at face value. When healthcare providers submit bills to New York insurance carriers and participate in the no-fault system, they may establish sufficient contacts with New York to support jurisdiction, making claims of jurisdictional defects less likely to succeed as a defense strategy.