Key Takeaway
NY court upholds verification defense in no-fault insurance case, ruling defendant need not prove verification letters weren't tampered with per Schozer precedent.
Schutzstaffel Med. Care, P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51305(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
“Defendant demonstrated that it had not received the requested verification. Plaintiff did not oppose defendant’s cross motion. Contrary to the Civil Court’s statement, there is nothing in the record which would require defendant to prove that the copies of the verification letters annexed to defendant’s cross motion had not been tampered with or altered (see Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of NY, 84 NY2d 639, 643 ; People v Dicks, 100 AD3d 528 ; Rotanelli v Longo, 210 AD2d 392 ). As the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny the claims did not begin to run (see Insurance Department Regulations § 65-3.8 ”
Schozer is a case that this particular Plaintiff loves to harp upon; yet, always gets it wrong. I never knew certain Civil Court Kings County judges required an affirmative showing of lack of tampering in order to preserve particular defenses.
FYI: every time I see “SS medical” I get to sick to my stomach. Like many of my generation, both sets of my grandparents escaped Nazi Germany. That said, many of my relatives did not escape. I just think it is completely offensive that someone would name their facility SS Medical, regardless of whether or not there was venal intent. If a portion of my post got you thinking, then that it is a good thing.
Related Articles
- Understanding verification mailing requirements in New York no-fault claims
- The 120-day verification rule and timing requirements
- How technical verification requirements can override common sense
- The first case interpreting Infinity v. Eveready precedent
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, Insurance Department Regulation § 65-3.8 governing verification requirements and payment timeframes may have been amended or revised. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent appellate decisions interpreting verification defense standards, as procedural requirements and evidentiary standards for establishing proper verification requests may have evolved.
