Key Takeaway
Analysis of Atlantic Radiology v Travelers case addressing verification request failures and timing issues in NY no-fault insurance claims litigation.
Atlantic Radiology Imaging, P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2018 NY Slip Op 50053(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2018)
“It being undisputed on this record that plaintiff failed to fully respond to the defendant-insurer’s verification requests, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the underlying first-party no-fault claims as premature (see St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v. Country Wide Ins. Co., 80 AD3d 599, 600 ). Even accepting plaintiff’s speculative assertion that defendant’s followup verification request was issued two days beyond the 10-day period prescribed by the regulation (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.6), this does not, under the circumstances here presented, deprive defendant of the benefit of the tolling of the 30-day period during which an insurer must pay or deny the claim (see Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v Eveready Ins. Co., 67 AD3d 862 ; Triangle R Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 30 Misc 3d 129, 2010 NY Slip Op 52294 ).”
Two points to be fleshed out here. First, all verification was not received. Problem. Second, the follow-up can be late without consequence. I sense divergence from the Second Department (AT).
Initially, a late follow-up according to the AT second department eliminated the toll. The AT First says otherwise.
Second, how do you harmonize the line of AT 2nd cases saying that the affidavit of compliance with verification is sufficient whereas this case which seems to look for record support regarding received verification?
Related Articles
- Understanding verification requests and mailing requirements
- The 120-day verification rule and timeline requirements
- When technical verification requirements override common sense
- The first case interpreting Infinity v. Eveready
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2018 post, the verification request procedures under 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 may have been subject to regulatory amendments or interpretive guidance that could affect timing requirements and tolling provisions. The divergent approaches between judicial departments regarding late follow-up verification requests noted in this analysis may have been clarified through subsequent case law or regulatory updates. Practitioners should verify current provisions of 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 and recent appellate decisions when advising on verification compliance issues.
