Key Takeaway
A significant no-fault insurance case heads to New York's Court of Appeals, potentially resolving the statute of limitations dispute for self-insured entities.
The statute of limitations for no-fault insurance claims has been a contentious issue in New York courts, particularly when dealing with self-insured entities. While most no-fault cases follow established timeframes, claims against self-insured organizations have created judicial uncertainty, with different courts reaching conflicting conclusions about whether a three-year or six-year limitation period applies.
This uncertainty has practical implications for injured parties and healthcare providers seeking reimbursement. The distinction between three versus six-year limitations can mean the difference between a viable claim and one that’s time-barred. Previously, the Appellate Term declined to follow First Department precedent on this issue, highlighting the need for definitive guidance from New York’s highest court.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Contact Chiropractic, P.C., as assignee of Butler v New York City Transit Authority, 2016 NY Slip Op 73043(U)(2d Dept. 2016)
SOL on self-insured’s going up to the Court of Appeals.
“ORDERED that the motion is granted, and the following question is certified to the Court of Appeals: Was the decision and order of this Court dated January 20, 2016, which determined that an action to recover first-party no-fault benefits from a party which is self-insured is subject to a six-year statute of limitations, properly made?
Questions of law have arisen, which, in our opinion, ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals (see CPLR 5713).”
Admittedly, this is an issue I do not encounter frequently in my practice insofar as I do not represent or bring actions (usually) against self-insured entities. I am curious to see how this shakes out,
Key Takeaway
The Second Department has certified a critical question to New York’s Court of Appeals regarding the proper statute of limitations for no-fault claims against self-insured entities. This case could finally resolve the ongoing judicial split between three-year and six-year limitation periods, providing much-needed clarity for practitioners handling these specialized claims.
