Key Takeaway
MVAIC's contradictory evidence about notice of claim filing created triable issues, demonstrating why defendants shouldn't introduce conflicting proof in no-fault cases.
MVAIC’s Self-Defeating Evidence Creates Factual Dispute
In no-fault insurance litigation, defendants often attempt to deny coverage by claiming the healthcare provider or patient failed to provide proper timely notice of their intention to file a claim. This procedural requirement serves as a condition precedent to coverage under New York’s no-fault law. However, when defendants introduce contradictory evidence into the record, they can inadvertently create the very factual disputes they’re trying to avoid.
The Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) learned this lesson the hard way in a recent Appellate Term decision that highlights a fundamental strategic error in litigation. Understanding what constitutes sufficient notice and how courts evaluate conflicting evidence is crucial for both healthcare providers and insurers navigating no-fault disputes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
VS Care Acupuncture, PC v MVAIC, 2016 NY Slip Op 50764(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2016)
“Our review of the record indicates that defendant failed to eliminate all triable issues with respect to whether plaintiff’s assignor filed a notice of intention to make a claim, since its own proof contains conflicting evidence (see Center Candy, Inc. v CJB Food Mart, Inc., 50 AD3d 723 ), specifically, a letter it sent to the assignor stating “we are in receipt of the Notice of Intention to Make Claim”
If the condition precedent to coverage is proof that the Assignor did not send a proper notice of claim, then why would a defendant introduce into their submissions a notice of intention to make a claim, unless bolstered with evidence that it was untimely or unreasonable? And to appeal the adverse decision just did not seem wise.
Key Takeaway
When arguing that no proper notice of claim was filed, defendants must ensure their evidence supports this position consistently. MVAIC’s own letter acknowledging receipt of a notice directly contradicted their denial position, creating a triable issue of fact that prevented summary judgment in their favor.
