Another Loss Transfer

Loss transfer arbitration represents a specialized arena within New York no-fault insurance litigation where insurance carriers battle each other over which company bears financial responsibility for medical claims. When multiple policies potentially cover an accident, New York’s no-fault regulations establish priority rules determining which carrier must pay first. Loss transfer proceedings allow a carrier that paid claims to seek reimbursement from another carrier that should have been primarily responsible under these priority rules.

The evidentiary standards in loss transfer arbitration differ significantly from traditional provider-versus-carrier disputes. In a typical no-fault case, the healthcare provider bears the initial burden of establishing prima facie entitlement to payment, after which the carrier must prove its defenses. In loss transfer proceedings, however, the petitioning carrier seeks reimbursement for payments already made, creating distinct dynamics regarding burden of proof and required evidence.

A critical issue in loss transfer cases involves the respondent carrier’s obligation to produce evidence challenging the propriety of the original payments. When the petitioner demonstrates that it paid certain claims and that the respondent should have been primarily liable under priority rules, can the respondent simply argue that the claims were improperly paid without producing supporting evidence? Or must the respondent affirmatively prove that medical management deficiencies justified non-payment?

Case Background

Matter of Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 08078 (2d Dept. 2016) addressed this evidentiary question in an Article 75 proceeding challenging a loss transfer arbitration award. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company sought reimbursement from Global Liberty Insurance Company for medical payments Liberty Mutual had made on claims that Global should have covered as the primary carrier.

In the arbitration, Liberty Mutual submitted evidence documenting the medical payments it had made and establishing Global’s primary liability under applicable priority rules. Rather than accepting full liability for reimbursement, Global contested the arbitration by arguing that Liberty Mutual had improperly paid some of the underlying medical claims. The arbitrator ultimately awarded Liberty Mutual partial reimbursement, finding that some but not all of the claims warranted transfer.

Liberty Mutual brought an Article 75 proceeding challenging the arbitrator’s partial denial of reimbursement. The carrier argued that once it established payment of claims and Global’s primary liability, the burden shifted to Global to prove that specific claims were improperly paid through evidence of medical management deficiencies. Liberty Mutual contended that Global failed to meet this burden, making the arbitrator’s partial denial arbitrary and capricious.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis

“Here, in response to Liberty Mutual’s submission of evidence establishing the medical payments for which it sought reimbursement, Global failed to produce any evidence that any of the medical claims were improperly paid (see generally State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Stack, 55 AD3d 594, 595). Accordingly, the arbitrator’s determination that Liberty Mutual was not entitled to full reimbursement was not supported by evidence in the record and was arbitrary and capricious (see generally Matter of Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v New York State Ins. Fund, 47 AD3d 633, 634).”

This case was interesting and really asked the Court how far it would take a hands off stance on getting involved in no-fault matters, whether it was a standard arbitration or loss transfer proceeding. Here, there was no evidence of medical management in the file and the loss-transfer arbitrator noted the same. Supreme Court and Appellate Division said this was insufficient to justify the underlying award.

What this case does, however, is give us a groundwork to defend or prosecute loss transfer claims. A respondent carrier needs to provide affirmative proof, i.e., peer reviews or documentary evidence explaining why a file was not properly medically managed. Quite interesting.

Legal Significance

The Second Department’s decision in Liberty Mutual establishes a clear evidentiary framework for loss transfer arbitrations. Once the petitioning carrier proves it paid claims and that the respondent carrier was primarily liable, the burden shifts to the respondent to affirmatively prove that the paid claims were improper. This burden cannot be satisfied through mere argument or speculation; the respondent must produce actual evidence demonstrating medical management deficiencies.

This holding reflects sound policy considerations. The petitioning carrier in a loss transfer case has already paid the underlying claims, meaning those claims survived whatever medical management review the petitioner conducted. While it is theoretically possible that the petitioner improperly paid claims that should have been denied, the respondent carrier seeking to avoid reimbursement responsibility cannot simply assert this possibility. The respondent must prove it through competent evidence such as peer reviews, IME reports, or other medical documentation.

The decision also clarifies the scope of Article 75 review in loss transfer cases. While courts generally show substantial deference to arbitrators’ factual findings, awards must be supported by evidence in the record. When an arbitrator denies reimbursement without any evidentiary basis for concluding the claims were improperly paid, that determination is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law.

Practical Implications

For carriers prosecuting loss transfer claims, Liberty Mutual provides an important strategic advantage. Petitioners should focus on documenting the payments made and establishing the respondent’s primary liability under priority rules. Once this foundation is established, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove claims were improper. Petitioners can then argue that any reimbursement denial lacking evidentiary support constitutes an arbitrary and capricious award subject to judicial vacatur.

For respondent carriers defending loss transfer claims, the decision establishes clear evidentiary requirements. Respondents cannot defeat transfer claims through unsupported arguments that the petitioner paid claims improperly. Instead, respondents must conduct actual file reviews, obtain peer review reports, commission IMEs if necessary, and produce documentary evidence demonstrating specific deficiencies in medical management.

This evidentiary requirement may significantly increase the costs of defending loss transfer cases. Obtaining quality peer reviews or IMEs for claims that were paid months or years earlier can be expensive and time-consuming. Respondent carriers must weigh these costs against the potential savings from successfully challenging reimbursement.

The decision also has implications for carriers’ initial payment decisions. When a carrier pays a claim without adequate medical management review, that payment may later be presumed proper in any loss transfer proceeding. Carriers cannot use loss transfer arbitration as an opportunity to conduct medical management they should have performed initially. This creates incentives for careful claims handling practices at the outset.

Related Articles

• Master Arbitrator Review Standards NY – When Decisions Can Be Vacated
• Article 75 review dissected
• Causation – Be aware of seeking a trial de novo after a master arbitrator affirms an award
• Understanding Article 75 Proceedings: You Cannot Backdoor Master Awards Through Declaratory Judgment