Written proof of loss is when it is mailed

Compas Med., P.C. v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am., 2016 NY Slip Op 26062 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)

“Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that one ground upon which it had timely denied plaintiff’s claims was that no one on plaintiff’s behalf had complied with 11 NYCRR 65-1.1, which states that written notice of an accident must be “given” to the insurer “as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event more than 30 days after the date of the accident” (11 NYCRR 65-1.1; see also Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 317 ). The affidavit of defendant’s no-fault claims manager, submitted in support of defendant’s cross motion, stated that defendant had first learned of the October 14, 2010 accident when it received an NF-2 form on November 15, 2010, thereby demonstrating that defendant had not received written notice of the accident within 30 days after it had occurred.

Plaintiff argues that mailing written notice of the accident to the insurer on or before the 30th day after the accident will satisfy the 30-day notice requirement of 11 NYCRR 65-1.1. We agree.

We note that 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 does not define what it means for a written notice to be “given,” and the Court of Appeals did not elaborate when it stated that a claimant must “submit” a notice of claim (Hospital for Joint Diseases, 9 NY3d at 317). However, 11 NYCRR 65-3.4 requires no-fault insurers to “forward to the applicant the prescribed application for motor vehicle no-fault benefits (NYS Form ) accompanied by the prescribed cover letter (NYS Form ),” and the prescribed cover letter included in Appendix 13 to Regulation 68 states that the NF-2 application for No-Fault Benefits (which satisfies the written notice requirement [see 11 NYCRR 65-3.3 (d)]) “must be sent to within 30 days of the accident date if your original notice to was not in writing.”

We hold that mailing the written notice of claim to the insurer within 30 days of the accident satisfies the requirement that written notice be “sent” to the insurer, as instructed by the prescribed cover letter, and that written notice be “given” to the insurer, as required by 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.

Here, defendant did not demonstrate, prima facie, that timely written notice of the accident had not been mailed to it. Rather, the 30th day after the accident fell on a Saturday, November 13, 2010, making Monday, November 15, 2010, the date on which defendant alleges it first received an NF-2 form, the last date by which written notice of the accident could be timely mailed (see General Construction Law §§ 25, 25-a; VS Care Acupuncture v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 141, 2015 NY Slip Op 50164 ; see also General Construction Law § 20 he day from which any specified period of time is reckoned shall be excluded in making the reckoning”]). Thus, defendant did not demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.”

How this fits the earlier NF-5 decision

Presbyterian v Country-Wide separates accident notice from medical proof of claim. Compas addresses a different question: whether timely mailing gives the required notice.

Compas did not merge the two deadlines or grant the provider summary judgment. It removed the insurer’s summary judgment victory because the insurer had not ruled out timely mailed notice.

Related Articles

• A 30-day notice case that went to trial
• The prejudice rule in action
• Some doors have swung open
• Timely notice requirements and coverage implications

Last reviewed: September 2026 — editorial check against the reported Compas decision; the earlier NF-5 case is linked to distinguish the notice and billing issues.