Key Takeaway
When typos in court filings undermine insurance companies' coverage defenses, even simple clerical errors can have significant legal consequences in no-fault cases.
Insurance companies must maintain meticulous documentation when denying coverage, as even minor clerical errors can undermine their defense. This principle became particularly evident in a recent Appellate Term case where inconsistent vehicle identification numbers in court papers created questions of fact that prevented summary judgment.
The Power of Precision in Insurance Defense
In New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases, insurers frequently rely on technical defenses to deny coverage. However, sloppy documentation can quickly transform what appears to be a straightforward coverage denial into a disputed question of fact. When defense strategies fail due to procedural missteps, the financial implications can be substantial, particularly in cases where reserves may not have been properly established.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Optimal Well-Being Chiropractic, P.C. v General Motors Assur. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51323(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
“In support of its motion, defendant’s investigator stated that, based on the vehicle identification number set forth in the police report of the accident in question, the vehicle at issue was not a covered vehicle under the applicable policy. However, the recitation of the vehicle identification number was inconsistent throughout the papers submitted in support of defendant’s motion, thus raising a question of fact as to whether the vehicle was not covered under the applicable insurance policy. In view of defendant’s conflicting evidentiary submissions, defendant failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact ”
Typos happen and sometimes you have to deal with it and move on. It just is not good when the typos form the basis of a non-coverage defense where there are probably no reserves set.
Key Takeaway
Clerical errors in insurance defense documentation can create triable issues of fact that prevent summary judgment, even in seemingly clear-cut coverage disputes. When technical defenses contain inconsistencies, insurers may find themselves unable to establish their non-coverage position definitively, potentially exposing them to liability they believed was excluded.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and procedural requirements for coverage denials may have been amended, particularly regarding documentation standards and evidentiary requirements for summary judgment motions. Additionally, appellate court precedents interpreting technical defense requirements and burden of proof standards in coverage disputes may have evolved. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law developments when relying on documentation-based coverage defenses.
