You are here: / / BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE,...
,

BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a concurrence and a three-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the three-year statute of limitations applies to no-fault claims against a self-insurer. The court reasoned that the self-insurance option is a creature of statute, not a contract:

We conclude that the three-year statute of limitations as set forth in CPLR 214 (2), which governs disputes with respect to penalties created by statute, should control this case. There is no dispute “that it is the gravamen or essence of the cause of action that determines the applicable Statute of Limitations” … , or that a three-year limitations period applies to “an action to recover upon a liability. . . created or imposed by statute” … . Moreover, although the three-year period of limitation in “CPLR 214 (2) does not automatically apply to all causes of action in which a statutory remedy is sought” … , that condition does attach to instances in which “liability would not exist but for a statute” (id.).

The no-fault benefits in dispute are not provided by a contract with a private insurer. Instead defendant has met its statutory obligation by self-insuring. No-fault is a creature of statute … . Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03093, CtApp 5-1-18

​INSURANCE LAW (NO-FAULT, BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, NO-FAULT, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))/CPLR 214 (INSURANCE LAW, NO-FAULT, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))/NO-FAULT (BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (INSURANCE LAW, NO-FAULT, BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))/SELF-INSURER  (INSURANCE LAW, NO-FAULT, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))

You might also like
DENIAL OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
Hospital Did Not Owe Intoxicated Patient a Duty to Prevent Him from Leaving Hospital
FATHER DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED ON BEHALF OF HIS INFANT SON TO THE RECORDING OF THREATS MADE AGAINST HIS SON BY DEFENDANT; ABSENT THE VICARIOUS CONSENT, THE RECORDING WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED ILLEGAL EAVESDROPPING AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE IN COURT.
IF QUESTIONING A DEFENDANT ABOUT WHERE HE/SHE LIVES SERVES AN ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSE AND IS NOT A DISGUISED ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN INCRIMINATING INFORMATION, DEFENDANT’S ANSWER IS SUBJECT TO THE PEDIGREE EXCEPTION TO THE MIRANDA REQUIREMENT; DNA EVIDENCE GATHERED BY THE FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED WITHOUT HOLDING A FRYE HEARING (CT APP).
DEFENSE EXPERT’S CONCLUSORY ASSERTIONS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS THE NEGLIGENT PRESCRIPTION OF TWO DRUGS CAUSED HEART DAMAGE.
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION OF ANNOTATED TRIAL EXHIBITS DURING PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION WAS PROPER BECAUSE THE ANNOTATIONS WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE TRIAL EVIDENCE.
APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT; PERMISSIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER, ARE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL ON THAT GROUND.
ACTIONS TAKEN BY A NEW YORK ATTORNEY WHO IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE JUDICIARY LAW 470, WHICH REQUIRES AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK, ARE NOT A NULLITY (CT APP).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF SECRET SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL, STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S... PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS,...