You are here: / / Requirements for Indefinite Tolling of 30-Day Period During Which a No-Fault...

Requirements for Indefinite Tolling of 30-Day Period During Which a No-Fault Carrier Must Determine Whether to Pay or Deny a Claim Explained

The Second Department noted that a request for verification that precedes a no-fault insurer’s receipt of the N-F-5 claim form does not trigger the tolling of the 30-day period within which an insurer must determine whether to pay or deny the claim. Once the tolling of the 30-day period is triggered, the insurer has 10 days from the expiration of the 30-day period to send a follow-up request for verification inorder to invoke an indefinite tolling of its time to pay or deny:

….[T]his action is not premature[—] the 30-day period in which the defendant must pay or deny the claim has not been indefinitely tolled. “[A]; request for verification that precedes a no-fault insurer’s receipt of the prescribed N-F 5 claim form does not trigger the tolling of the 30-day period within which an insurer must determine whether to pay or deny such a claim” … . Here, the defendant sent two letters requesting verification, one dated March 15, 2010, and another dated April 15, 2010. The defendant’s verification request dated March 15, 2010, was sent after the defendant received an “interim bill” from the plaintiff, which was sent solely for the purpose of notifying the defendant of the claim, and preceded the defendant’s receipt of the N-F 5 form. Thus, the March 15, 2010, verification request did not trigger the tolling of the 30-day period within which an insurer must determine whether to pay or deny the claim. Consequently, the only effective request for verification was the one dated April 15, 2010, six days after the defendant’s receipt of the plaintiff’s N-F 5 form … .

The April 15, 2010, verification request resulted in an initial toll of the 30-day period within which to pay or deny the claim (see id.). The defendant then had 10 days from the expiration of that 30-day period to send a follow-up request for verification in order to invoke the protection of the indefinite tolling of its time to pay or deny the claim … . However, no follow-up request was issued. Since the initial toll of the 30-day period following the plaintiff’s submission of the N-F 5 form to the defendant had expired by the time this action was commenced, this action is not premature… . Mount Sinai Hosp v Dust Tr Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03667, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

You might also like
ABSENT PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER ON FATHER OR FATHER’S COUNSEL, THE TIME FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER NEVER BEGAN RUNNING (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATION THAT THE WATER MAIN ON DEFENDANTS’ NEIGHBORING PROPERTY BROKE CAUSING WATER TO ENTER PLAINTIFFS’ BASEMENT STATED A NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE RES-IPSA-LOQUITUR THEORY (SECOND DEPT).
THE ORDER SUSPENDING THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE DURING COVID APPLIED HERE; DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY-TRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER-TEACHER’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE BECAUSE THE MANDATE IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED AN ADVISORY OPINION TO THE CONTRARY; THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES WAS IMPROPER; THE PETITION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE EMERGENCY HAD DIMINISHED AND THE POLICE OFFICER HAD TURNED OFF HIS SIREN AND LIGHTS WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, THE OFFICER WAS STILL ENGAGED IN AN EMERGENCY OPERATION AND DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Six-Year Statute of Limitations for Reformation of Deed Exceeded, No Evidence the Exception to the Statute Applied
PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF SLIPPING ON THE BASKETBALL COURT WHICH WAS WET WITH CONDENSATION; PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE OF THE RECURRING CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF SIBLINGS TO REMAIN TOGETHER, CUSTODY OF BOTH CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO FATHER IN THIS MODIFICATION PROCEEDING.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Voluntary Firefighter Should Not Have Been Suspended Without a Hearing Pursuant... Defendants Failed to Make Allegations Sufficient to Demonstrate a Lack of Constructive...