Key Takeaway
Court ruling clarifies that insurance company's internal mail handling procedures are irrelevant when proving proper mailing of EUO scheduling letters under CPLR 3212(g).
Understanding the Nexus Between Receipt and Mailing in No-Fault Cases
In no-fault insurance litigation, establishing proper mailing of examination under oath (EUO) scheduling letters is crucial for insurers seeking to deny claims based on non-appearance. The procedural requirements under CPLR 3212(g) create specific burdens of proof, but a recent Appellate Term decision clarifies an important distinction about what evidence matters—and what doesn’t—when proving timely mailing.
The case of Maiga Products Corp. v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. addresses a common challenge in EUO no-show cases where plaintiffs argue that insurers haven’t adequately proven proper mailing procedures. This decision provides clarity on the scope of evidence required and highlights how courts view the relationship between mailing practices and receipt procedures.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Maiga Prods. Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51681(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2018)
” Plaintiff challenges the Civil Court’s implicit CPLR 3212 (g) finding that the first EUO scheduling letter had been timely mailed, arguing that the individual who executed the affidavit of mailing of the EUO scheduling letters did not demonstrate knowledge of the practice and procedures for receipt of the claim forms, which were mailed to defendant’s office in Atlanta, Georgia. Plaintiff also challenges the Civil Court’s implicit CPLR 3212 (g) finding that defendant established plaintiff’s failure to appear for the EUOs. However, a review of the record establishes that the Civil Court correctly determined that defendant had established plaintiff’s failure to appear for the EUOs. Moreover, defendant’s practices and procedures regarding the receipt of its mail are irrelevant”
The last sentence is well quite interesting.
Key Takeaway
The court’s ruling establishes that when proving proper mailing under CPLR 3212(g), insurance companies need only demonstrate their outbound mailing procedures—not their internal mail receipt processes. This distinction simplifies the evidentiary burden for insurers in mailing disputes and clarifies that receipt procedures at the insurer’s office are separate from proving proper notice to claimants.
