Incorrect zipcode is fatal to mailing of the letters

In New York’s no-fault insurance system, insurance companies frequently require injured parties to attend Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) to evaluate claims. When scheduling these examinations, insurers must provide proper notice to claimants. However, seemingly minor administrative errors in the mailing process can have significant legal consequences, as demonstrated in a recent appellate court decision.

The case of Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Citiwide Auto Leasing illustrates how attention to detail in correspondence can make or break a no-fault insurance case. This ruling provides important guidance for both healthcare providers and insurance companies navigating the complex requirements of New York’s no-fault system.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Citiwide Auto Leasing, 2014 NY Slip Op 51801(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)

“The record establishes that, after plaintiff had submitted its claim, defendant sent plaintiff’s assignor letters scheduling the IMEs in question. However, because the address to which the IME scheduling letters were sent used an incorrect zip code, defendant’s proof was insufficient to give rise to a presumption of receipt”

This could be the only time that using certified mail (in conjunction with regular mail) can have an advantage. Invariably, correspondence sent to the wrong zip-code often gets properly delivered. Yet, there is a definite absence of proof issue in these types of cases.

Key Takeaway

When scheduling IMEs in no-fault cases, insurance companies must ensure complete accuracy in mailing addresses, including zip codes. An incorrect zip code can defeat the legal presumption of receipt, even if the letter was ultimately delivered. This technical deficiency can undermine an insurer’s defense and strengthen a healthcare provider’s position in collection actions.

Related Articles

• Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance: Rights, Consequences, and Strategic Considerations
• No-Fault Verification Requirements: When Partial Compliance Isn’t Enough
• The CPLR 3212(g) paradigm
• Understanding CPLR 3212(a): Critical Timing Rules for Summary Judgment Motions in New York
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations and procedural requirements for IME scheduling notices may have been modified through regulatory amendments or updated Department of Financial Services guidelines. Practitioners should verify current mailing requirements, notice provisions, and any changes to presumptions of receipt under the most recent no-fault regulations.