Punted.

Westchester Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 00500 (2d Dept. 2014)

“The respondent’s contention that there was a complete absence of coverage that could be asserted as a basis for disclaimer notwithstanding its failure to comply with the 30-day rule set forth in Insurance Law § 5106(a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.8(c) (see generally Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195; Zappone v Home[*2]Ins. Co., 55 NY2d 131), is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and, therefore, is not properly before this Court.”

This is the second case now that we have the issue pertaining to whether Unitrin will find its way to the Second Department.  The first was Interboro v. Clennon where the court found timely denials yet cited to Unitrin.  Now we have Westchester v. Geico which acknowlegdes Unitrin has validity but awaits the issue for another day.

I think the Appellate Division is waiting to see how the Appellate Term, Second Department acts as well as perhaps how the Third and Fourth Department sees the issue.  I think the Third Department will be speaking  on this soon.  I am not sure about the Fourth Department – nobody has answered any of my cases.

Related Articles

• The backtracking of Unitrin
• Walking out of an EUO leads to a disclaimer and a whole lot more
• No-show failed the Alrof test
• EUO of a medical provider – untimely
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, the regulatory framework governing no-fault disclaimer procedures under 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 and Insurance Law § 5106 has been subject to potential amendments and case law developments. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding 30-day denial requirements and disclaimer procedures, as appellate courts may have provided additional guidance on the Unitrin doctrine’s application across different departments.