The boilerplate “I mailed the verification letters”

In New York’s no-fault insurance system, verification requests play a crucial role in the claims process. Insurance companies routinely demand additional documentation to verify the legitimacy of medical bills, and providers must respond appropriately or risk having their claims denied as premature. However, disputes often arise over whether verification materials were actually mailed and received.

The case of J.C. Healing Touch Rehab, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. illustrates a common battlefield in New York no-fault insurance law litigation: the battle of affidavits regarding mailed verification letters. When insurance companies claim they never received requested verification documents, healthcare providers must present evidence that they properly mailed the required materials. The strategic use of carefully crafted affidavits can mean the difference between summary judgment and proceeding to trial.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

J.C. Healing Touch Rehab, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50033(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)

“Defendant also demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and, thus, that plaintiff’s first and third through sixth causes of action are premature (_see_11 NYCRR 65-3.8 ; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 ). However, in opposition to the cross motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from an employee of National Billing & Collections, Inc., which affidavit was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant”

Well again (and this time from a different plaintiff – he learned Rybak’s tricks), a similarly worded vague affidavit forces a trial.

Key Takeaway

This decision demonstrates how strategic affidavit drafting can effectively counter insurance company verification defenses. Even when insurers successfully establish they didn’t receive verification materials, a well-crafted affidavit from a billing company employee can create sufficient presumption of mailing to defeat summary judgment motions and force the matter to trial.

Related Articles

• Understanding the CPLR 3212(g) paradigm for summary judgment motions
• Critical timing rules for summary judgment motions under CPLR 3212(a)
• When partial compliance with no-fault verification requirements isn’t enough
• How reasonable excuse can overcome default judgments in no-fault cases
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2016, 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 and related no-fault verification requirements may have been subject to regulatory amendments affecting notice procedures, response timeframes, and documentation standards. Additionally, subsequent court decisions may have refined the evidentiary standards for proving mailing and receipt of verification materials. Practitioners should verify current provisions of the regulations and recent case law developments when handling verification disputes.