Staged accident not proven

Case Background

Staged accident cases present unique evidentiary challenges for insurance companies seeking to avoid liability for fraudulent claims. Unlike straightforward coverage disputes, allegations that an accident was deliberately caused to obtain insurance benefits require proof that goes beyond mere suspicion or irregularities in claim documentation. Insurance companies must establish through admissible evidence that the collision was intentionally orchestrated rather than a legitimate accident.

In Progressive Advanced Insurance Co. v. McAdam, the plaintiff insurance company sought summary judgment on its complaint for declaratory relief, arguing that two separate collisions involving its insureds were staged accidents designed to generate fraudulent insurance claims. The insurer relied on police accident reports and an affidavit from its medical representative to support these allegations. However, the Second Department found these evidentiary submissions fundamentally deficient under New York’s summary judgment standards.

The decision also addressed a secondary issue involving examination under oath compliance. The insurance company claimed that certain defendants had breached their insurance contracts by failing to attend scheduled EUOs. This claim raised separate evidentiary questions about proof of proper notice and mailing compliance.

Progressive Advanced Ins. Co. v McAdam, 2016 NY Slip Op 03484 (2d Dept. 2016)

“In support of its motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against Sovereign, the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the subject accidents were staged. The uncertified police accident reports submitted by the plaintiff were not admissible (see Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Bates, 130 AD3d at 796; Sanchez v Taveraz, 129 AD3d 506, 506; Adobea v Junel, 114 AD3d 818, 820; Hazzard v Burrowes, 95 AD3d 829, 831; cf. Caldara v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 130 AD3d 665, 666). The plaintiff submitted an affidavit of its medical representative, but that representative relied largely on inadmissible evidence, and lacked personal knowledge of the facts surrounding the two collisions. Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, through admissible evidence, that the subject collisions were deliberately caused to fraudulently obtain insurance benefits (see Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Bates, 130 AD3d at 796; cf. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Laguerre, 305 AD2d 490, 491). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that McAdam and Fedee were in breach of their insurance contracts with the plaintiff because several defendants failed to attend their scheduled EUOs. The plaintiff failed to submit proof of mailing or evidence from someone with personal knowledge of the mailings of the EUO requests”

I find it amazing that Judges on these proofs will find a sufficient basis to grant a default judgmtn (3215), let alone meet the basis to grant summary judgment (3212). Garbage in, garbage out.

Legal Significance

This decision reinforces fundamental evidentiary principles that apply with equal force to insurance fraud cases as to any other civil litigation. The court’s rejection of uncertified police accident reports demonstrates that the seriousness of fraud allegations does not justify relaxing admissibility standards. Police reports constitute hearsay when offered to prove the truth of matters asserted within them, and absent proper certification under CPLR 4518 or another hearsay exception, such reports cannot form the evidentiary foundation for summary judgment.

The court’s analysis of the medical representative’s affidavit addresses a common problem in insurance litigation: affiants who lack personal knowledge of the underlying facts. An affidavit based on review of inadmissible documents or information obtained secondhand does not create competent evidence sufficient to support summary judgment. The representative’s lack of personal knowledge regarding the circumstances of the collisions rendered the affidavit insufficient, regardless of any expertise the representative might possess in fraud detection.

The decision also highlights a critical distinction between establishing a prima facie case for default judgment under CPLR 3215 versus summary judgment under CPLR 3212. Default judgment requires only a showing that plaintiff has a viable cause of action, while summary judgment demands proof establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court’s observation about judges granting defaults on inadequate proofs raises important questions about the rigor with which courts scrutinize evidence in uncontested proceedings.

Practical Implications

For insurance companies pursuing staged accident claims, this decision provides a clear roadmap of evidentiary requirements. Uncertified police reports alone will not suffice. Companies must obtain properly certified reports, deposition testimony from investigating officers with personal knowledge, expert accident reconstruction analysis, or other admissible evidence establishing that the collision was intentionally caused. Affidavits from claims representatives or investigators must demonstrate personal knowledge of the facts or properly rely on business records and other admissible materials.

The EUO compliance portion of the decision serves as a reminder that proof of mailing requirements apply with equal force to all procedural notices in insurance litigation. Insurance companies cannot rely on assumptions that EUO notices were properly mailed; they must submit affidavits from individuals with personal knowledge of the mailing process or business records demonstrating that mailings occurred in accordance with standard office procedures.

Related Articles

• Proof insufficient to prove the accident was intentional
• Absence of a business record entry = no motor vehicle accident
• Insurance Material Misrepresentations: When Preponderance Matters More Than Intent
• The appellate division grants summary judgment since the loss was not an insured event
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law