State Farm and Georgia – passes Appellate Term scrutiny

Maiga Prods. Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 50736(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2018)

I kept hearing musings about how State Farm’s receiving mail in Georiga and processing denials/payments/verifications and other CSO’s was somehow fatal to the timeliness of the disclaimer, verification or payment.  The usual “how do we know” line was also brought up.  But at the end of the day, State Farm processes its incoming mail through a modern 21st century system, logs its receipt and then sends its outgoing mail in a proper “Non-Allstate” and “Non-Progressive” manner.  Read the John Niles Allstate affidavit (old version) or the Appellate Division Progressive case for context to this comment.

I know Maiga was trying to bank on the Westchester v. Philadelphia case, but the facts just do not add up in the STate Farm context.

In any event, the mailing challenge was properly defeated.

“The Civil Court further found that the only remaining issues for trial were plaintiff’s prima facie case and “ procedure for receipt of the bills in Georgia and processing and transmittal to and in Ballston Spa .” Defendant appeals, contending that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.”

“e note that defendant’s transmittal of the claims from one of its offices to another of its offices does not raise a triable issue of fact.”

Related Articles

• Understanding No-Fault Insurance Mailing Requirements: Lessons from the First Department’s “Venom” Decision”
• The Usual Mailing Arguments Have Fallen on Deaf Ears (Again): When Courts Reject Technical Challenges
• Claims documents considered as business records and unsuccessful mailing challenge
• Understanding Verification Requests in New York No-Fault Insurance Claims
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law