Key Takeaway
Analysis of successful insurance defense summary judgment in NY no-fault case involving parked vehicle. Evidentiary requirements for medical providers. Call 516-750-0595.
When Summary Judgment Works: A Rare Victory in No-Fault Insurance Defense
While medical providers throughout Long Island and New York City face increasingly difficult challenges in obtaining summary judgment against insurance companies, the defense side occasionally achieves successful summary judgment motions that completely dismiss plaintiff claims. Understanding these defense victories provides valuable insights into the evidentiary standards and strategic considerations that shape no-fault insurance litigation.
The case of New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company demonstrates how insurance companies can successfully defend no-fault claims when the underlying facts fail to establish a covered motor vehicle accident. This decision highlights the critical importance of proper evidence preservation and foundation requirements in no-fault litigation.
The New York Hospital Case: A Defense Victory
New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 52388(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)
In this case, the Plaintiff Assignor jumped on a parked car and walked away and the complaint was dismissed
“In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by its insured who stated that plaintiff’s assignor had jumped on the hood of the insured’s car, while it was parked, and got off of the car without incident or injury. The insured, according to his sworn statement, drove away without further contact with plaintiff’s assignor. Consequently, defendant argued that plaintiff’s assignor’s alleged injuries did not arise out of an insured incident.”
In opposition Plaintiff offered a non certified police report and what appear to be non-certified hospital records, which District Court found was sufficient to warrant a trial.
Holding #1: The police report offered by plaintiff did not constitute proof in admissible form, as it was not certified pursuant to CPLR 4518 (c) and no foundation establishing its authenticity and accuracy was offered (see Cheul Soo Kang v Violante, 60 AD3d 991, 991 ). In any event, “the statements in the report attributed to the constituted inadmissable hearsay” (id. at 991-992).”
Holding #2: “The hospital records that plaintiff submitted to the court purport to include a description of the alleged accident as reported to hospital staff by plaintiff’s assignor. Such statements are considered reliable only when they are relevant to diagnosis or treatment (see Williams v Alexander, 309 NY 283, 286 ). Here, the hospital records do not contain any allegations that rebut the allegations contained in defendant’s insured’s sworn statement. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to lay the requisite foundation for the hospital records (see CPLR 4518 , ).” Following this the court gave an “assuming arguendo” passage when they said: “even assuming the hospital records were admissible at all, and therefore could be used as proof that plaintiff’s assignor was injured by a motor vehicle, they still did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant’s insured was involved, thereby triggering defendant’s liability.”
End of the day: Plaintiff loses. Two case cites: St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 69 AD3d 923 ; Andromeda Med. Care, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 126, 2009 NY Slip Op 52601 ).”
Don’t let technical evidentiary failures cost your practice thousands in unpaid claims. Call 516-750-0595 today for experienced representation in your no-fault insurance matters. We serve medical providers throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and the greater New York metropolitan area.
Related Articles
- Understanding when evidence is insufficient to prove intentional accidents
- How staged accident allegations affect insurance coverage claims
- Why timely denial of intentional acts is crucial for coverage defenses
- Court verdict upholding intentional loss determination
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone multiple amendments, including updates to verification procedures under Insurance Regulation 68 and changes to claims processing requirements. Additionally, court procedural rules and evidentiary standards under CPLR 4518 may have been modified. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law developments when evaluating summary judgment strategies in no-fault insurance defense matters.
