VTL 313 in action

When an automobile insurance policy is cancelled, New York’s Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 imposes strict procedural requirements on the insurer. The statute serves a dual purpose: protecting the insured by requiring proper notice of cancellation, and safeguarding the integrity of the state’s mandatory insurance system by requiring the insurer to notify the Department of Motor Vehicles. For no-fault practitioners, VTL § 313 compliance is a frequent battleground — if the insurer cannot prove it followed the statute’s requirements, the cancellation is ineffective, and the insurer remains liable for no-fault benefits even if premiums were never paid.

VTL § 313(1) requires that the insurer mail a notice of cancellation to the insured at the address shown on the policy. VTL § 313(2)(a) then requires the insurer to file a copy of the cancellation notice with the DMV within 30 days of the effective date of cancellation. Both prongs must be satisfied. Failure to comply with either renders the cancellation void as against injured parties and their assignees. The Appellate Term, Second Department’s decision in SK Prime Med. Supply v Permanent Gen. Assur. Corp. examines what constitutes sufficient proof of compliance with both requirements.

Case Background

In SK Prime Med. Supply, the plaintiff medical supply company, as assignee of a no-fault claimant, sued Permanent General Assurance Corporation to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The insurer raised a coverage defense, asserting that the policy had been cancelled prior to the accident. To prevail on this defense, the insurer needed to demonstrate compliance with both prongs of VTL § 313: proper mailing of the cancellation notice to the insured, and timely filing of the cancellation with the DMV.

The Appellate Term found in the insurer’s favor on both requirements, but the nature of the DMV filing proof — specifically whether a certified DMV record was produced — remains a critical evidentiary question.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis

SK Prime Med. Supply v Permanent Gen. Assur. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 52052(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2019)

I want to see the defendant’s proof of filing. I see a “c.f.” to Kitchen so I know they did not obtain a certified record from DMV. Was it a DMV from underwriting that in the course and conduct of our business, we timely filed the cancellation? Hmm..

Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant sufficiently demonstrated that it had mailed a policy cancellation letter to the insured in accordance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1), and that defendant had filed a copy of the notice of cancellation with the Department of Motor Vehicles within 30 days of the effective date of the cancellation, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (2) (a) (_see Bullock v Hanover Ins. C. v Hartford Ins. _, ___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op 51792 ; [_cf. Matter of Progressive Classic Ins. Co.

htm) ; [_Matter of Material Damage Adj. Corp. C. v Allstate Ins. htm) ).

Legal Significance

” citation to Matter of Progressive Classic Ins. Co. v Kitchen is telling, as Jason Tenenbaum observes. ” signal — meaning “compare” — typically indicates that the cited authority is distinguishable or supports a different proposition. In Kitchen, the First Department held that the insurer’s failure to file proof of cancellation with the DMV rendered the cancellation ineffective. ” rather than a direct citation suggests that the insurer’s proof of DMV filing in SK Prime may not have included a certified DMV record, yet the court still found it sufficient.

This raises the question of whether internal business records — such as an underwriting affidavit attesting to routine filing practices — can satisfy VTL § 313(2)(a) without an independent DMV certification. The court’s reliance on *Bullock v Hanover Ins. * and KJC Chiropractic suggests that corroborative business records may suffice when the overall record supports compliance.

The decision also highlights the distinction between the named insured and third-party assignees. Because the plaintiff’s assignor was not the named insured or a household member, the effective cancellation extinguished coverage entirely as to that individual — a result that follows directly from the statutory framework.

Practical Implications

For practitioners challenging a cancellation defense, the nature of the insurer’s DMV filing proof is a critical area of inquiry. Demand production of the actual DMV filing or certified DMV records during discovery. If the insurer relies solely on an internal business record to prove filing, challenge the foundation and admissibility of that proof. For defense counsel, the safest practice is to obtain and produce a certified DMV record confirming the cancellation filing, which eliminates any evidentiary challenge.

The absence of such a record — even if the court ultimately credits a business records affidavit — creates an unnecessary vulnerability on appeal.

Key Takeaway: To establish a valid policy cancellation under VTL § 313, the insurer must prove both proper mailing of the cancellation notice to the insured and timely filing with the DMV within 30 days. While business records may suffice to prove DMV filing, practitioners should scrutinize the nature and admissibility of that proof, particularly where no certified DMV record is produced.

Related Articles

• VTL 313(2)(a) filing requirements not met
• VTL cancellation compliance issues
• Insurance mailing affidavit requirements
• 15-day cancellation notice timing requirements