Key Takeaway
New York court rules oral notification sufficient for no-fault claims, raising questions about written notice requirements and trial strategy in insurance disputes.
In New York’s no-fault insurance system, providers must typically give written notice of their intention to seek reimbursement from insurance carriers. However, a recent Kings County Civil Court decision has created uncertainty about whether oral notification alone can satisfy this requirement. This case highlights the ongoing tension between strict procedural requirements and practical considerations in no-fault litigation.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond simple notice requirements. It touches on fundamental questions about how timely notice requirements should be interpreted and whether there are circumstances where less formal communication methods might suffice. For practitioners handling no-fault cases, understanding when and how notice requirements can be satisfied is crucial for protecting their clients’ interests.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Sky Med. Supply Inc. v Elrac Inc., 2014 NY Slip Op 24232 (Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2014)
Court held that oral notification of claim was sufficient and seems to obviate the need the need to provide written notice of claim. Therefore, the carrier loses. I am not going to parse the decision because it is convoluted how it is written.
My first thought is why is a case like this going to “trial”? My second thought is wouldn’t the better line of reasoning be that the denial was valid since there was not timely written notice of claim; however, the plaintiff can still prevail if they can satisfy as Judge Ciaffa called it in Medical Select v. Allstate (another case that should never have went to trial) the safety valve provision of the regulations regarding late notice?
Now, since you are at trial, wouldn’t the provider have to prove the applicability and reasonableness of the so-called safety valve through producing the assignor at “trial” to testify as to why he/she did not file a timely notice of claim?
The decision seems backwards to me.
Key Takeaway
This decision raises significant questions about established notice requirements in no-fault cases. Rather than accepting oral notice as sufficient, courts might better serve the system by focusing on whether providers can demonstrate reasonable excuse for late written notice through proper testimony and evidence at trial.
