Form and procedure – not part of a prima facie case in a cancellation case

Policy cancellation disputes in New York’s no-fault insurance system often hinge on technical compliance with statutory requirements. Insurance companies must follow specific procedures when canceling coverage, including precise formatting and notification standards under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313. However, courts have established clear guidelines about who bears the burden of proving whether these procedural requirements were met.

Understanding the burden of proof in New York no-fault insurance law cancellation cases is crucial for both providers and insurers. When an insurance company claims it properly canceled a policy, the legal framework creates a structured approach to evaluating these disputes that can significantly impact the outcome of coverage claims.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Queens Med. Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 51060(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)

I am going to guess that the bolded language refers to those cases where the defendant hires a professional typesetter who will testify that the cancellation was not in Times 14 font?

Once the insurance company makes a prima facie showing that it had timely and validly cancelled the policy in compliance with Vehicle and [*2]Traffic Law § 313, the burden shifts to the party claiming coverage to establish noncompliance with the statutory requirements as to form and procedure”

Key Takeaway

This decision establishes that once an insurer demonstrates basic compliance with cancellation procedures, the burden shifts to the party seeking coverage to prove specific procedural defects. This burden-shifting framework means providers must present concrete evidence of formatting or procedural violations rather than simply challenging the insurer’s cancellation notice.

Related Articles

• Understanding procedural requirements under CPLR 3212(g)
• Critical timing rules for summary judgment motions in CPLR 3212(a)
• When partial compliance with verification requirements fails
• Regulatory amendments affecting no-fault procedures
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2012, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 and related no-fault insurance cancellation procedures may have been subject to regulatory amendments or judicial interpretations that could affect burden of proof standards and procedural requirements. Additionally, Insurance Law § 5106 provisions governing no-fault benefits and related cancellation disputes may have undergone updates. Practitioners should verify current statutory language and recent case law developments when handling policy cancellation matters.