Proof of no collision

Understanding Prima Facie Evidence in No-Fault Insurance Disputes

In New York’s no-fault insurance system, healthcare providers often assign their rights to collect payment from patients to collection companies. These assignees then pursue insurance companies for reimbursement of medical services. However, what happens when an insurance company claims their insured vehicle was never involved in the alleged accident?

A recent Appellate Term decision provides valuable guidance on exactly what evidence insurance companies need to present when defending against no-fault claims by asserting no collision occurred. The case demonstrates that courts don’t require overwhelming documentation—just clear, specific facts that establish the insurance company’s position.

The “No Loss” Defense in No-Fault Insurance Litigation

The “no loss” defense represents one of the most fundamental coverage defenses available to insurance carriers. Unlike defenses based on procedural noncompliance or medical necessity, the no loss defense attacks the very foundation of the claim: that the insured vehicle was involved in the alleged motor vehicle accident. When successfully established, this defense completely eliminates the insurer’s obligation to provide no-fault benefits, as there is no covered loss triggering the policy’s first-party coverage provisions.

Courts have consistently held that the no loss defense is not subject to the preclusionary provisions that apply to other defenses under New York’s no-fault regulations. Because it goes to the fundamental question of coverage rather than the validity of particular claims or procedures, insurers can raise the defense at any time during litigation, even if not asserted in initial denial of claim forms. This distinction makes the no loss defense particularly valuable for insurance companies when evidence of non-involvement emerges during discovery or investigation.

The burden of proof for establishing a prima facie no loss defense has been the subject of considerable litigation. Insurance companies must present sufficient evidence to shift the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the insured vehicle was indeed involved in the accident. The question addressed in New Way Med. Supply Corp. v. Dollar Rent A Car was precisely how much evidence suffices to meet this threshold.

Case Background: New Way Medical Supply Corp. v. Dollar Rent A Car

In this case, New Way Medical Supply Corp., as assignee of the patient, sued Dollar Rent A Car seeking reimbursement for medical supplies provided following an alleged motor vehicle accident on June 18, 2011. Dollar Rent A Car defended on the grounds that none of its vehicles were involved in any collision on that date involving the claimant.

Dollar submitted an affidavit from a company representative attesting to several key facts: the company is a self-insured entity that does not issue automobile policies to individuals or other entities; no Dollar vehicle was involved in the alleged June 18, 2011 accident; the claimant’s name did not appear in any search of Dollar’s claim system; and there were no records of any accident associated with the claimant in Dollar’s database.

The plaintiff argued that this affidavit was insufficient to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the no loss defense, contending that more extensive documentation of company records and search procedures was necessary. The court had to determine whether the affidavit’s straightforward assertions sufficed to make out a prima facie case.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

New Way Med. Supply Corp. v Dollar Rent A Car, 2015 NY Slip Op 51794(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)

An exhaustive affidavit is not necessary. The following is the requisite proof: “2. Dollar vehicle was not involved in an alleged vehicular collision on June 18, 2011, a loss for which plaintiff’s assignor allegedly received medical treatment.

…

6. The claimant Jacen Adams (nor Adams Jacen) did not appear in any claimant name search. There are no records of an accident associated with said individual in Dollar’s system.

7. Secondly, Dollar is a self-insured entity and does not issue automobile policies to individuals or other entities.

8. Based upon the foregoing, I can attest with certainty that a Dollar vehicle was not involved in this particular vehicular collision on June 18, 2011, the loss for which plaintiff claims entitlement to No-Fault reimbursement.”

They said this is enough to prove prima facie no accident.

Legal Significance: Streamlined Standards for No Loss Defenses

The New Way Medical Supply decision establishes that insurance companies need not produce exhaustive documentation or detailed explanations of their record-keeping systems to establish a prima facie no loss defense. A properly verified affidavit from a knowledgeable company representative attesting to the negative—that no vehicle was involved and no records exist of the claimant or accident—suffices to shift the burden to the plaintiff.

This ruling reflects sound policy considerations. Requiring extensive documentation to prove a negative would impose significant burdens on defendants and potentially make it prohibitively expensive to assert legitimate no loss defenses. The court recognized that when a party with custody of relevant records swears that those records contain no evidence of the alleged transaction, that sworn statement should be accorded probative weight sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

The decision also implicitly addresses concerns about fabricated or fraudulent no-fault claims. In cases where vehicles were never involved in accidents, requiring defendants to produce voluminous records to prove non-involvement would reward plaintiffs for filing baseless claims. The streamlined standard permits efficient resolution of such cases while still requiring defendants to present credible, verified evidence of non-involvement.

Importantly, the court’s holding does not eliminate the plaintiff’s opportunity to contest the no loss defense. Once the defendant establishes a prima facie case through such an affidavit, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise triable issues of fact. Plaintiffs can still prevail by presenting evidence that contradicts the defendant’s affidavit, such as police reports, witness statements, or other documentation placing the defendant’s vehicle at the scene.

Practical Implications for No-Fault Insurance Practitioners

For insurance defense counsel, this decision provides valuable guidance on efficient motion practice. Rather than compiling extensive documentary submissions, defendants can establish no loss defenses through concise, well-crafted affidavits from knowledgeable representatives who can attest to: (1) the absence of any company records regarding the alleged accident; (2) searches conducted for the claimant’s name yielding no results; (3) the company’s insurance or self-insurance status; and (4) the affiant’s personal knowledge and certainty that no company vehicle was involved in the incident.

The decision emphasizes the importance of the affiant’s qualifications and knowledge. The affidavit should establish that the affiant has access to the relevant records, conducted appropriate searches, and is competent to attest that the absence of records means the incident did not involve the company’s vehicle. While the affidavit need not be exhaustive, it should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that the affiant’s conclusions are based on actual review of company records rather than mere speculation.

For plaintiffs’ counsel, the decision underscores the need for thorough investigation before filing no-fault collection suits. When claimants provide information about the vehicles involved in accidents, that information should be verified through police reports, DMV records, or other reliable sources. Filing suits based solely on claimant representations without independent verification risks dismissal when defendants present straightforward affidavits of non-involvement.

Additionally, plaintiffs facing no loss defense motions must be prepared to present competent evidence contradicting the defendant’s prima facie showing. Mere allegations or unsubstantiated assertions will not suffice. Plaintiffs should obtain and present police reports, photographs, witness affidavits, or other documentary evidence establishing that the defendant’s vehicle was indeed involved in the accident.

Key Takeaway

Insurance companies defending no-fault claims don’t need exhaustive documentation to prove no collision occurred. Simple affidavit statements confirming no vehicle involvement, no records of the claimant, and company status as self-insured can establish prima facie evidence sufficient to shift the burden back to the plaintiff.

Related Articles

• District Court Found That a Detailed Affidavit Was Sufficient to Show That the Vehicle Was Not Involved in a Motor Vehicle Accident
• My car was not there damnit!
• Understanding Pedestrian Contact Defense in New York Personal Injury Cases
• The appellate division grants summary judgment since the loss was not an insured event – UPDATED