A timely denial with errors

NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 08613 (2d Dept. 2014)

On October 18, 2012, the plaintiff mailed a copy of the NF-5 claim form to the defendant, Lopez’s automobile insurance carrier. The defendant received it on or about October 20, 2012, and thereafter issued an NF-10 denial of claim form dated November 14, 2012. The plaintiff, while not disputing that the defendant had issued a denial of claim within 30 days after its receipt of the NF-5 claim form, asserted in its motion for summary judgment that the NF-10 form was “defective” because it “contain the wrong amount of the bill and the wrong amount in dispute.” Upon an order entered September 10, 2013, granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action, the Supreme Court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $19,095.62.

Among the ways in which a no-fault insurer may comply with the “30 day rule” (see Insurance Law § 5106; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8; ) is by issuing a “timely and sufficient” NF-10 denial of claim form within 30 days after its receipt of an NF-5 claim form (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 33, 46). Nonprejudicial mistakes or omissions in [*2]an otherwise timely and proper “NF-10” denial of claim form are not necessarily fatal (see Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 855; NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Esurance Ins. Co., 84 AD3d 1190, 1191-1192; St. Barnabas Hosp. v Penrac, Inc., 79 AD3d 733, 734; see also Westchester Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 77 AD3d 737, 738; cf. St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 82 AD3d 871; Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d 664). Here, the papers submitted in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment included a copy of the defendant’s NF-10 denial of claim form. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the NF-10 form was timely and sufficient. Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs did not meet their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 114 AD3d at 46).

An NF-10 can have mistakes, but the question is whether they are prejudicial.  Here, the NF-10 had the UB-05 amount and not the DRG value.  The Court allowed the claim to be handled on its merits, and rightfully so.

Related Articles

• How Claim Representative Affidavits Can Cure NF-10 Form Inaccuracies in New York No-Fault Law
• The Materiality of the Mistake in the Denial Renders it Per Se Invalid
• What really happened in St. Barnabus v. Allstate
• Understanding No-Fault Insurance Claim Denials: Key Lessons from Five Boro Psychological Services Case

Legal Update (February 2026): The regulatory framework governing NF-10 denial requirements under 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 and related Insurance Law provisions may have been amended since this 2014 decision. Practitioners should verify current denial form requirements, procedural standards for timely denials, and any updated guidance on what constitutes “nonprejudicial mistakes” in NF-10 forms.