You are here: / / “Prompt Pay Law” Affords a Private Right of Action Against...

“Prompt Pay Law” Affords a Private Right of Action Against An Insurer Which Fails to Pay a Patient’s Undisputed Medical Claim

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Austin, the Second Department determined the so-called “Prompt Pay Law” (Insurance Law 3224-a) affords an implied private right of action.  The law, therefore, can be enforced by a private lawsuit based upon its breach.  The defendant insurance company (First United) argued only the NYS Insurance Department could enforce the statute.

The Prompt Pay Law requires an insurer to pay undisputed claims within 30 days after receipt of an electronic submission or within 45 days after receipt by other means (see Insurance Law § 3224-a[a]). If a claim is disputed, the insurer is obligated to pay the undisputed portion of the claim, if there is any, and, within 30 days of receipt of the claim, notify the policyholder, covered person, or health care provider in writing of the specific reason that the insurer is not liable to pay the claim (see Insurance Law § 3224-a[b][1]). In the alternative, the insurer may request additional information necessary to determine its potential liability with respect to payment of the claim (see Insurance Law § 3224-a[b][2]). First United allegedly did neither. An insurer that fails to comply with the provisions of the Prompt Pay Law is obligated to pay the health care provider or the person submitting the claim the full amount of the claim, plus 12% interest per annum, to be computed from the date the claim was required to be paid (see Insurance Law § 3224-a[c][1]). * * *

Where a statute does not expressly confer a private cause of action upon those it is intended to benefit, a private party may seek relief under the statute “only if a legislative intent to create such a right of action is fairly implied’ in the statutory provisions and their legislative history” … . This inquiry involves three factors:” (1) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme'” … .Only the third factor, which is generally the “most critical” … is disputed here. * * *

A review of the legislative history of the Prompt Pay Law reflects that the law was directed toward the protection of health care providers and patients from late payment of claims, and was not primarily designed to provide a mechanism for preventing harm to the public in general.  Maimonides Med Ctr v First United Am Life Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 01441, 2nd Dept 3-5-14

 

You might also like
PROBATION ONLY IS NOT A LEGAL SENTENCE FOR ASSAULT SECOND; ORDER OF PROTECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN FAVOR OF A PERSON WHO WAS NOT A VICTIM OR WITNESS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN INADEQUATELY PROTECTED HOLE IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WHEN HE (APPARENTLY) WAS DOING WORK ON BEHALF OF HIS EMPLOYER, APPARENTLY A TENANT IN THE BUILDING; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER; BUT PLAINTIFF PRESENTED NO PROOF HIS EMPLOYER HAD ASSUMED THE DUTIES OF AN AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR SUPERVISION OF HIS WORK, THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE VIRGINIA DIVORCE DID NOT CHANGE THE PARTIES’ STATUS FROM TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY TO TENANTS IN COMMON FOR THEIR NEW YORK MARITAL RESIDENCE; NEW YORK FOLLOWS THE “DIVISIBLE DIVORCE” DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE NOTE WAS NOT PROPERLY ENDORSED (SECOND DEPT).
BARE ALLEGATIONS THAT A SCHOOL KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF A TEACHER’S PROPENSITY TO ABUSE STUDENTS, UNSUPPORTED BY ANY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS, ARE NOT ENOUGH TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLIGENT RETENTION (SECOND DEPT).
IF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED BY A PARTY IT IS WAIVED AND CANNOT BE ASSERTED, SUA SPONTE, BY A JUDGE; IN ADDITION, A JUDGE CANNOT DECIDE A MOTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE MISTAKENLY ORDERED THE SALE OF MULTIPLE LOTS, WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE A SINGLE BUILDING SPANNED THE THREE LOTS, THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY DEEMED THE PROPERTY TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AS A SINGLE LOT, COURT HAS THE POWER TO CORRECT A MISTAKE, SUA SPONTE, WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY TURNING LEFT INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS SPEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Excessive Absences Do Not Establish a Parent’s “Educational Neg... Failure to Make Timely Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Improper Service Constituted...