Claim rep affidavit sufficient to prove no insurance in effect

Understanding Who Can Testify About Insurance Coverage

In New York no-fault insurance litigation, proving whether coverage existed at the time of an accident is crucial for both insurers defending claims and medical providers seeking payment. A recent appellate decision clarifies important evidentiary standards about who can provide testimony regarding insurance coverage status.

Insurance coverage disputes in no-fault cases frequently hinge on threshold questions: Was a policy in effect on the accident date? Was the specific vehicle listed on the policy? Had coverage lapsed due to nonpayment of premiums? These factual predicates must be established through competent evidence before courts reach substantive coverage issues. The type of witness qualified to provide this foundational testimony has important implications for both insurers seeking to avoid liability and providers pursuing unpaid claims.

Historically, some courts required that only underwriters—the insurance company employees responsible for issuing policies and making coverage decisions—could testify about policy status and coverage scope. This restrictive approach created practical difficulties for insurers, as underwriters may have left employment, be unavailable for litigation, or lack specific knowledge of individual policies issued years earlier. The evolution toward accepting testimony from other qualified insurance personnel reflects both practical necessity and recognition that various company employees possess reliable knowledge of coverage facts.

Case Background

Compas Medical, P.C. provided treatment to a patient injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought no-fault benefits from Travelers Insurance Company. The provider filed suit after Travelers denied the claim on grounds that no insurance coverage existed for the vehicle involved in the January 18, 2011 accident.

Travelers moved for summary judgment, submitting affidavits from two company representatives: a claim litigation representative and a products specialist. These affidavits established that the vehicle driven by plaintiff’s assignor at the time of the accident was not covered by any Travelers insurance policy. The affidavits detailed the company’s review of its records, the policy in question, and the vehicles listed under that policy, demonstrating that the accident vehicle was not among them.

Plaintiff opposed the motion but did not submit evidence creating a triable issue regarding coverage. The central question became whether affidavits from a claim litigation representative and products specialist could sufficiently establish the absence of coverage, or whether Travelers needed testimony specifically from an underwriter.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Compas Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51247(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)

“In support of its motion, defendant submitted affidavits by its claim litigation representative and products specialist, which affidavits established that the vehicle which had been driven by plaintiff’s assignor at the time of the accident on January 18, 2011 was not covered by the insurance policy at issue. Consequently, defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that “the alleged injur do[] not arise out of an insured incident”

I recall some older cases that made it a point to stress that affidavits and testimony regarding coverage and mailing of the cancellation letters must be made by an underwriter. Currently, I am at a loss to recall those cases.

Legal Significance

The Compas Medical decision represents the Second Department Appellate Term’s pragmatic approach to coverage proof requirements. By accepting affidavits from claim litigation representatives and products specialists, the court acknowledged that these insurance company personnel possess sufficient knowledge and access to records to reliably testify about policy status and vehicle coverage.

This flexible evidentiary standard serves important efficiency objectives. Requiring underwriter testimony in every coverage dispute would create unnecessary delays and expense, particularly given that underwriters may have limited involvement with claims administration after policies are issued. Claim litigation representatives and products specialists regularly review policy records in the course of their duties and can competently testify about what those records reveal.

The decision also reflects the court’s recognition that the key inquiry is not the witness’s title but rather their knowledge and the reliability of the underlying records they consulted. Insurance company employees who review and verify policy information as part of their regular duties qualify as competent witnesses on coverage issues, provided their affidavits establish a foundation showing they reviewed relevant records and possess personal knowledge of the facts attested to.

Practical Implications

For insurance carriers defending no-fault claims, Compas Medical provides flexibility in selecting witnesses to establish coverage defenses. Rather than searching for underwriters who may no longer be available, carriers can utilize claim representatives and products specialists who maintain and review policy records. These witnesses should submit affidavits detailing their position, responsibilities, the records reviewed, and the specific factual findings regarding coverage.

Medical providers challenging coverage defenses should focus on substantive coverage issues rather than attacking witness qualifications. When insurers submit affidavits from qualified company personnel establishing absence of coverage, providers must respond with evidence creating triable issues regarding whether coverage actually existed. Arguments that only underwriters can testify about coverage will likely fail absent specific circumstances requiring underwriter expertise.

Defense counsel should ensure that affidavits from non-underwriter witnesses establish proper foundation: the affiant’s role in the company, their access to and review of relevant records, and their personal knowledge of the facts. Courts will accept these affidavits when they demonstrate the witness possesses reliable information about policy status, but conclusory statements without foundation may prove insufficient.

Key Takeaway

This decision shows that New York courts will accept affidavits from claim litigation representatives and products specialists as sufficient evidence to establish that no insurance coverage existed. This represents a practical approach that allows qualified insurance company employees beyond just underwriters to provide coverage testimony, making it easier for insurers to prove no policy of insurance defenses.

Related Articles

• Triable issue of fact as to lack of coverage
• Standard for proving no policy of insurance in effect
• Article 75 petition regarding coverage disputes in AAA arbitration