MVAIC trouble

MVAIC Coverage Requirements: A Tale of Two Departments

The Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) serves as New York’s insurer of last resort for no-fault benefits when no other coverage exists. However, strict eligibility requirements apply, including that the injured person must be a “qualified person” under Insurance Law § 5202(b). A recent Appellate Term decision highlights how different judicial departments approach the burden of proof regarding these requirements, creating important strategic considerations for practitioners handling New York no-fault insurance law cases.

The case of Central Radiology Services v. MVAIC demonstrates how procedural nuances can determine case outcomes, particularly when parties stipulate to facts without considering all implications. This decision reveals a critical difference in how courts in different departments handle burden of proof issues in MVAIC cases.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Central Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 2014 NY Slip Op 24402 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)

“Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, Insurance Law § 5202 (b) provides that a “qualified person” must be a resident of New York State. While the parties stipulated that MVAIC had received a notice of intention to make claim form with respect to plaintiff’s assignor, the stipulation is silent as to whether the notice of [*2]intention to make claim form was sworn and whether it reflected the residence of plaintiff’s assignor. Thus, it is unknown whether the notice of intention to make claim form was sufficient to establish, in the first instance, that this condition precedent was satisfied”

Flip this around in the First Department. MVAIC would have needed to prove that it never received a sworn claim form or that the Assignor was not a New York resident. And at this trial on stipulated facts, MVAIC would have stipulated itself to defeat in the First Department or in a Supreme Court in the Second Department.

Key Takeaway

The burden of proof regarding MVAIC eligibility requirements differs significantly between judicial departments. While the Second Department places the burden on plaintiffs to establish qualification, the First Department requires MVAIC to prove disqualification. This procedural difference can be outcome-determinative, making venue selection crucial in MVIAC cases where eligibility issues may arise.

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and MVAIC procedures may have been subject to amendments, including potential changes to eligibility requirements under Insurance Law § 5202, procedural rules for burden of proof determinations, and notice requirements. Practitioners should verify current statutory provisions and recent appellate decisions to ensure compliance with any updated MVAIC coverage requirements and procedural standards.