Statute of Limitations defense was SOL

Statute of limitations defenses in no-fault insurance litigation require carriers to establish that plaintiffs commenced actions after the applicable limitations period expired. Under New York law, the statute of limitations for no-fault insurance claims generally runs six years from the date the cause of action accrued. However, determining when the limitations period begins and whether plaintiffs filed timely actions often involves complex factual and legal questions regarding service of process, receipt of denials, and accrual dates.

When defendants assert statute of limitations defenses on summary judgment motions, they bear the initial burden of proving that actions were commenced outside the applicable limitations period. This burden requires defendants to demonstrate when causes of action accrued and when plaintiffs first served summonses and complaints. Only after defendants satisfy this prima facie showing does the burden shift to plaintiffs to raise triable issues of fact regarding timeliness or applicable tolling doctrines.

Service of process plays a crucial role in statute of limitations analysis because actions are deemed commenced upon service of the summons and complaint, not upon their filing. Defendants claiming they never received service face significant evidentiary burdens to rebut plaintiffs’ prima facie proof of proper service. Affidavits of service filed with courts create presumptions of proper service that defendants can overcome only through specific, credible evidence demonstrating non-service.

The Appellate Term’s decision in Dyckman Medical Diagnostic/Treatment, P.C. v Granite State Insurance Co. illustrates the challenges defendants face when attempting to establish statute of limitations defenses while simultaneously disputing service of process. The case demonstrates how procedural missteps and inadequate proof can doom otherwise potentially viable defenses.

Case Background

Dyckman Medical Diagnostic/Treatment, P.C. brought an action against Granite State Insurance Company to recover no-fault benefits. Granite State moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on statute of limitations grounds, asserting that the action had been commenced outside the applicable six-year period. The carrier contended that it never received the summons and complaint allegedly served in 2003, and that the action therefore was not timely commenced.

Granite State supported its motion with an affidavit from a litigation specialist employed by a company that administers claims for the carrier. The affiant, located in Albany, New York, stated based on review of Granite State’s records that the carrier never received a summons and complaint prior to September 26, 2008. Granite State apparently attempted to use this affidavit both to establish the late commencement of the action and to rebut plaintiff’s proof of service at the carrier’s New York City office.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis

Dyckman Med. Diagnostic/Treatment, P.C. v Granite State Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51026(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)

(1) “A defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing a complaint on statute of limitations grounds bears the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to commence the action had expired (see 6D Farm Corp. v Carr, 63 AD3d 903 ;Island ADC, Inc. v Baldassano Architectural Group, P.C., 49 AD3d 815 ). ”

(2) “defendant annexed an affidavit by a litigation specialist employed by a company that administers claims for it, which company is located in Albany, New York, who merely stated, based on a review of defendant’s records, that defendant had never received a summons and complaint in the instant action prior to September 26, 2008. ”

(3) “As an affidavit of a process server constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service, defendant’s mere conclusory denial of receipt of that summons and complaint, made by an employee of a company other than defendant and not by someone employed at the New York City office where service was effectuated, was insufficient to rebut plaintiff’s prima facie proof of proper service”

(4) “It should be noted that defendant’s submission of an answer in 2008 and its service of discovery demands acted as a waiver of any right it may have had to dismissal, pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c), of the 2003 complaint, to which complaint defendant allegedly had never previously served an answer”

So much went wrong for Granite State. As some might say, they could not get out of their own way on this one.

Legal Significance

The Appellate Term’s decision establishes important principles regarding the proof required to defeat service of process and sustain statute of limitations defenses. When process servers file affidavits of service with courts, those affidavits create strong presumptions of proper service that defendants cannot overcome through general denials or conclusory statements. Defendants disputing service must submit specific, detailed evidence from individuals with personal knowledge of the location where service allegedly occurred.

The decision also demonstrates how defendants’ procedural responses can waive objections to service or timeliness. By serving an answer and discovery demands in 2008, Granite State effectively conceded that it had been properly served and was participating in the litigation. This conduct contradicted the carrier’s subsequent claim that it never received the 2003 summons and complaint, undermining the statute of limitations defense premised on late commencement. Courts view such inconsistent positions skeptically and may find defenses waived through defendants’ earlier conduct.

Practical Implications

For insurance carriers asserting statute of limitations defenses, this decision underscores the necessity of comprehensive proof when claiming non-service. Affidavits from claims administrators located in different offices than where service allegedly occurred carry little weight against process servers’ affidavits. Carriers disputing service should obtain affidavits from personnel actually present at the service location with personal knowledge of office practices for receiving legal process. Generic statements about record searches proving non-receipt will not suffice.

The decision also highlights the dangers of serving answers and participating in litigation while simultaneously claiming never to have been properly served. Carriers receiving what appear to be duplicate summonses and complaints should investigate thoroughly before responding substantively. If carriers determine they were not previously served, they should raise those objections immediately through appropriate pre-answer motions rather than serving answers that waive jurisdictional defects and service objections.

Related Articles

• Understanding the six year statute of limitations in no-fault insurance cases
• How to save a case brought outside the applicable statute of limitations
• When the six year statute of limitations period begins
• Determining whether it’s a three year or six year limitations period

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and procedural requirements under Insurance Law § 5102 may have been amended through regulatory updates or legislative changes. Additionally, CPLR provisions regarding statute of limitations defenses and service of process requirements may have been modified. Practitioners should verify current statutory timeframes, procedural requirements, and case law developments when asserting or defending against statute of limitations claims in no-fault insurance litigation.