Key Takeaway
Court ruling in Compas Med. v Praetorian establishes that detailed mail receipt procedures can rebut presumption of claim receipt in no-fault insurance disputes.
No-fault insurance litigation frequently centers on whether claims were properly submitted and received by insurance companies. The presumption of receipt — the legal assumption that properly mailed documents reach their intended recipient — plays a crucial role in these disputes. However, insurance companies can challenge this presumption by providing detailed evidence about their mail handling procedures and demonstrating no record of receipt.
A recent Appellate Term decision highlights the varying standards courts apply when evaluating evidence of non-receipt, raising important questions about consistency in New York no-fault insurance law.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51679(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)
IME no-show substantiated.
“However, with respect to the sixth cause of action, defendant sufficiently described its procedures for the receipt of mail and stated that defendant has no record of having received this claim. By rebutting the presumption of receipt, defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether this claim had been submitted to defendant (see Healing Health Prods., Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 59 ).”
How come the verification non-receipt affidavits that are accepted as sufficient to raise an issue of fact are nowhere near as detailed?
Key Takeaway
This decision demonstrates that courts will accept detailed descriptions of mail receipt procedures as sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of receipt in no-fault cases. However, it raises questions about the inconsistent standards applied to verification affidavits claiming non-receipt, which often succeed with far less detailed evidence than what was required here.
Related Articles
- Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance: Rights, Consequences, and Strategic Considerations
- Understanding CPLR 3212(a): Critical Timing Rules for Summary Judgment Motions in New York
- The CPLR 3212(g) paradigm
- No-Fault Verification Requirements: When Partial Compliance Isn’t Enough
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is New York's no-fault insurance system?
New York's no-fault insurance system requires all drivers to carry Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage. This pays for medical expenses and lost wages regardless of who caused the accident, up to policy limits. However, you can only sue for additional damages if you meet the 'serious injury' threshold.
