Key Takeaway
New York no-fault case: E4 Services v Lincoln General - court rules denial of receipt alone insufficient to rebut mailing presumption, requires proof of improper procedures.
E4 Servs., Inc. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50678(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2014)
(1) “The evidentiary proof submitted by the defendant-insurer established, prima facie, that its initial and follow-up verification letters were timely and properly mailed to plaintiff in accordance with defendant’s mailing practices and procedures, as detailed in the submitted affidavits (see Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v Donnelly, __ NY3d __, 2014 NY Slip Op 02328 …) Note that this is the first citing of the recent Court of Appeals precedent of Donnelly.
(2) “In opposition, plaintiff’s “denial of receipt, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption” of receipt established by defendant’s proof of mailing (Badio v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 229, 230 ; see Trusts & Guar. Co. v Barnhardt, 270 NY 350, 354-355 ).” There is nothing new here.
(3) “In addition to a claim of no receipt, there must be a showing that routine office practice was not followed or was so careless that it would be unreasonable to assume that the notice was mailed” (Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d at 830; see Badio v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 12 AD3d at 230-231; Pardo v Central Coop. Ins. Co., 223 AD2d 832, 833 ; Abuhamra v New York Mut. Underwriters, 170 AD2d 1003, 1003-1004 ), a showing not here made by plaintiff. Nor did plaintiff provide a sufficiently detailed showing of its own procedures in retrieving, opening, and indexing its mail and in maintaining its files on existing claims to raise a triable issue of fact”. This passage suggests that the provider (or carrier in the non-receipt context) must prove that the routine procedure was not followed AND the provider (or carrier in the non-receipt context) must establish a detailed showing of an office practice thereby allowing a presumption of non-receipt to be established.
Related Articles
- Understanding verification request mailing procedures and requirements
- When technical verification requirements override common sense in no-fault cases
- The 150-day verification rule and timing requirements
- How equitable considerations impact no-fault verification disputes
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law practice area
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 decision, New York’s no-fault verification requirements and mailing procedures may have been modified through regulatory amendments or updated Department of Financial Services guidance. Practitioners should verify current verification timelines, acceptable mailing practices, and evidentiary standards for proving proper notice under the most recent Insurance Law provisions and regulations.
