Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing coverage coverage, with 150 published articles analyzing coverage issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Proving Policy Payments: The Foundation Problem in No-Fault Insurance Cases
Insurance companies defending no-fault insurance claims often assert that policy limits have been exhausted through prior payments to other providers. However, simply producing payment logs isn’t enough — these business records must be properly authenticated under New York’s evidence rules. The Appellate Term’s decision in JPF Medical Services demonstrates how seemingly minor procedural oversights can derail an insurer’s defense and leave them exposed to significant liability.
The case highlights two critical issues that frequently arise in no-fault litigation: the phantom affidavit problem and insufficient business record foundation. When insurance companies fail to properly authenticate their payment records, they cannot establish their policy exhaustion defense as a matter of law, potentially exposing them to claims they believed were covered by prior payments to other medical providers.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
JPF Med. Servs., P.C. v Nationwide Ins., 2020 NY Slip Op 51122(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2020)
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
” Here, defendant failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it had made any payments under the policy because, as plaintiff argues, defendant’s claim specialist did not lay a sufficient foundation for the payment log, upon which defendant relied, to be accepted as proof that the payments listed therein had been made (see CPLR 4518 ; People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569 ; Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 61 Misc 3d 154, 2018 NY Slip Op 51815 ). Although defendant’s claim specialist referred to an affidavit annexed as exhibit K, which presumably discussed the payment log, an affidavit was not attached to the papers received by the court. Consequently, defendant failed to make a prima facie showing”
The phantom affidavit and the business record foundation. Both can cause problems.
Key Takeaway
Insurance companies must establish proper foundation for business records when claiming policy exhaustion. Missing or inadequately authenticated documentation — including phantom affidavits referenced but not submitted — can prevent insurers from proving their defense. This procedural failure can expose them to liability for claims they believed were already covered by policy limit exhaustion.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Insurance Coverage Issues in New York
Coverage disputes determine whether an insurance policy provides benefits for a particular claim. In the no-fault context, coverage questions involve policy inception, named insured status, vehicle registration requirements, priority of coverage among multiple insurers, and the applicability of exclusions. These articles examine how New York courts resolve coverage disputes, the burden of proof on coverage defenses, and the interplay between regulatory requirements and policy language.
150 published articles in Coverage
Keep Reading
More Coverage Analysis
IME no-show is a policy defense triggering the hourly attorney fee provision
Learn how IME no-show defenses trigger hourly attorney fee provisions in NY no-fault insurance. Court rules failure to attend IME is policy defense.
May 22, 2021
Contractual deemer
New York courts examine when out-of-state insurers can avoid no-fault coverage obligations through contractual deemer provisions and policy language analysis.
Apr 24, 2021
Progressive cannot prove they mailed documents
Progressive insurance company fails to prove proper mailing of claim denials, court finds insufficient evidence of standard office procedures in NY no-fault case.
May 4, 2015
Punted.
Second Department punts on Unitrin issue in Westchester v. GEICO, noting coverage challenge improperly raised on appeal while awaiting clarity from other courts.
Jan 30, 2014
The MVAIC blood letting continues
MVAIC faces another courtroom defeat in S & L Med. P.C. v MVAIC, where untimely claim denials failed to protect against qualified no-fault benefit challenges.
Nov 8, 2010
Policy exhaustion, again
NY Court rules on no-fault policy exhaustion when healthcare provider defaults on EUO verification requirements in Ameriprise v Kensington Radiology case.
Feb 12, 2020Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a coverage matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
