Key Takeaway
MVAIC fails to prove lack of no-fault coverage eligibility and seeks indefinite interest tolling in medical provider reimbursement case, raising questions about litigation tactics.
This article is part of our ongoing statutory interest coverage, with 8 published articles analyzing statutory interest issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
The Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) serves as New York’s insurer of last resort for no-fault benefits when other coverage cannot be identified. However, MVAIC frequently contests claims by arguing that patients had other available coverage, shifting the burden of proof to medical providers seeking reimbursement.
In no-fault litigation, interest and attorney fees can accumulate significantly over time, making the question of when interest begins to accrue critically important for both providers and insurers. When MVAIC cannot establish that alternative coverage existed, courts must determine whether statutory interest should be tolled indefinitely or begin accruing from specific procedural milestones.
The case of Hilda-Bloor Medical highlights a common scenario where MVAIC seeks reimbursement disputes while simultaneously requesting that interest obligations be suspended indefinitely. This strategy raises important questions about litigation tactics and whether parties should bear responsibility for delays in congested court systems.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Hilda-Bloor Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 2013 NY Slip Op 50382(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2013)
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
“Defendant failed to submit any competent proof establishing that plaintiff’s assignor was not qualified to receive no-fault benefits (see Englington Med., P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 81 AD3d 223, 229 ; Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667 ). Nor did defendant show that plaintiff was required to “exhaust its remedies” prior to commencing this action”
…
“In the event it is determined that the cited tolling provision is applicable, the result would be the accrual of interest from the commencement date of the action and not, as defendant would have it, a complete moratorium on the payment of interest”
I like the theory that interest should toll indefinitely, and perhaps one who knowingly places a case into a court with rampant congestion should be charged with some of the accrued interest. It is not as if the defendant placed the case into Bronx Civil court, where matters get adjourned forever…
Key Takeaway
Courts reject MVAIC’s attempts to completely eliminate interest obligations when the insurer fails to prove alternative coverage existed. Even when tolling provisions apply, interest typically accrues from the lawsuit’s commencement date rather than being suspended indefinitely, ensuring medical providers receive appropriate compensation for delayed payments.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More Statutory interest Analysis
Interest and attorney fee
Court finds excessive interest calculation in no-fault case affects attorney fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.6, highlighting importance of proper interest calculation periods.
Jan 3, 2015
Interest-ing
New York court rules on when statutory interest begins accruing on no-fault insurance claims - from filing or service of summons and complaint under CCA 412.
Aug 26, 2014
$5.00 rule
Civil Court rules providers can collect no-fault insurance interest under $5 despite regulatory language, ensuring statutory penalty provisions remain effective.
May 14, 2013
Shady Grove v. Allstate: How Federal Court Access Transformed NY No-Fault Class Actions
How Shady Grove v. Allstate opened federal courts to NY no-fault class actions. Expert analysis of Erie doctrine impact and forum shopping strategies.
Apr 2, 2010
LMK Attorney Fee Calculation Problems in NY No-Fault Cases
Expert analysis of LMK attorney fee calculation issues in NY no-fault cases. Long Island attorney explains court decision problems. Call 516-750-0595.
Apr 4, 2009
NY No-Fault Insurance Interest: East Acupuncture Decision Impact
NY Appellate Division's East Acupuncture decision changes no-fault insurance interest calculations for Long Island healthcare providers and attorneys.
Feb 20, 2009Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a statutory interest matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
