Key Takeaway
Court reverses motion to dismiss in no-fault insurance case, ruling interest clock continues despite pleading deficiencies when opposition provides sufficient information.
High Definition MRI, P.C. v Travelers Cos., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02027 (1st Dept. 2016)
(1) “Here, the complaint standing alone failed to apprise defendant insurance companies of basic pertinent information to put them on notice of the claims against them, such as the patients treated and the insurance policies issued by defendant, under which plaintiff submitted claims for treatment rendered. However, in opposition to defendant insurance companies’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from its principal with an exhibit attached providing such information. Thus, the complaint and affidavit submitted in opposition sufficiently apprise defendant insurance companies of the “transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions” that form the basis of the complaint (CPLR 3013).”
(2) “Contrary to defendant insurance companies’ further contention, the complaint sufficiently alleges that plaintiff is the assignee of claims under the policies issued by defendant insurance companies. Defendant insurance companies’ further contention that plaintiff failed to appear for [*2]examinations under oath, which is a condition precedent to coverage (Hertz Corp. v Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 124 AD3d 411 ), presents a factual issue not amenable to resolution on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7).”
Two points to see in this case. First, a motion to dismiss for breach of no-fault contract requires that the pleader allege the person on whose behalf the contract is breached. Second, the propriety of an EUO no-show defense is inappropriate on a motion to dismiss.
Related Articles
- Civil Court jurisdiction limitations in declaratory judgment actions
- Legal document quality and procedural requirements in New York cases
- First Department declaratory judgment procedural victories
- Understanding retroactive application of New York insurance regulations
- Denial of claims practice area
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2016 decision, CPLR pleading standards and motion practice procedures may have been modified through court rule amendments or legislative updates. Additionally, no-fault insurance regulations governing examination under oath requirements and assignee claim procedures may have been revised. Practitioners should verify current provisions of CPLR 3013 and 3211, as well as applicable Insurance Law sections and regulatory guidance.
