There was no accident

Pavlova v Allstate Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51061(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2018)

“In support of its motion, defendant submitted the transcript of the examination under oath (EUO) of its insured in which she testified that she had been parking her vehicle at the time of the alleged accident, that no accident had occurred and that plaintiff’s assignor, a pedestrian, had not been struck by her vehicle. In a supporting affidavit, the insured attested to the same facts. The EUO testimony and the affidavit are sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that “the alleged injury not arise out of an insured incident” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 ; see Andromeda Med. Care, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 126, 2009 NY Slip Op 52601 ; Midwood Med. Equip. & Supply, Inc. v USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 139, 2009 NY Slip Op 52379 ”

I just had a discussion with someone regarding 65-.14, which stands for the proposition that contact is not necessary for no-fault eligibility purposes.  The case law has construed that, and properly, to require a discernible nexus between the instrumentality and the injury.  (1) Car must it person.; (2) Person in car that stop shorts; (3) Car hits power line that falls on someone.  But a pedestrian without contacting a vehicle, or a pedestrian that did not contact an object due to a car’s contact with something will continue to require no-fault ineligibility.

Related Articles

• Absence of a business record entry = no motor vehicle accident
• Understanding New York’s One Year Rule in No-Fault Insurance Claims
• Causation in Personal Injury Cases: Understanding 5102(d) Standards in New York
• New York Personal Injury Law: Proving Causation in Accident Cases
• Personal Injury

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2018 post, practitioners should be aware that Insurance Regulation 65-3.14 regarding contact requirements for no-fault coverage may have been subject to interpretive updates or clarifying amendments. Additionally, case law developments since 2018 may have further refined the “discernible nexus” standard for establishing causation between motor vehicle instrumentalities and injuries in no-fault claims.