Key Takeaway
New York Appellate Term references CPLR 4518 in no-fault mailing case, raising questions about business record foundations and evolving legal standards.
Understanding CPLR 4518 in No-Fault Insurance Mailing Cases
New York’s no-fault insurance system involves strict procedural requirements, particularly regarding the timely mailing of claim denials. A recent Appellate Term decision has highlighted an interesting development in how courts evaluate evidence of proper mailing, specifically referencing Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 4518. This statute governs the admissibility of business records as evidence, though its application in mailing cases raises intriguing questions about evolving legal standards.
The case involves Eagle Surgical Supply challenging Allstate’s denial of a no-fault claim, with the central issue being whether the insurance company could prove it properly mailed its denial within required timeframes. The court’s citation to CPLR 4518 represents a notable development in how these procedural issues are analyzed, particularly given that mailing cases typically don’t require traditional business record foundations.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50950(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
“Contrary to plaintiff’s sole contention on appeal, the affidavits and documents submitted by defendant in support of defendant’s motion were sufficient to establish that the denial of claim form had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 ; see also CPLR 4518).”
As we all know, a business record foundation is not necessary to demonstrate that a denial is timely as the document is not used for a non-hearsay purpose. Perhaps, this is interesting because Allstate apparently lost on anther mailing case, with presumably similar affidavits. Yet, in this case, “4518” was the elixir that righted where something was wrong. Or, was this just a new set of law clerks at the Appellate Term who saw seeing these cases differently? These are questions I just do not have the answers to.
Key Takeaway
The Appellate Term’s reference to CPLR 4518 in this mailing case represents an unexpected twist, given that business record foundations are typically unnecessary for proving timely mailing. This development may signal changing judicial attitudes or simply reflect different perspectives among court personnel reviewing Allstate’s procedural compliance in no-fault cases.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 analysis of CPLR 4518’s application to no-fault mailing procedures, there have been subsequent appellate decisions and potential regulatory amendments that may have refined or modified how business records are authenticated in insurance denial cases. Practitioners should verify current case law interpretations and any updates to procedural requirements for proving proper mailing in no-fault disputes.
