You are here: / / Denial of “Defective” No-Fault Claim (on Form UB-40) Was of...

Denial of “Defective” No-Fault Claim (on Form UB-40) Was of No Effect—Failure to Respond Within 30 Days to a Subsequent “Correct” Claim (on Form NF-5) Precluded Insurer from Raising Defenses to the Claim

The Second Department determined the insurer’s denial of a defective claim was of no effect and the insurer’s failure to respond to the valid claim within 30 days precluded raising defenses to the claim:

[The insurer] contends that the 30-day period commenced when it received the Form UB-04 in December 2011, that it timely requested verification of the claim, and that, after it received the medical records, it timely denied the claim in January 2012. [the hospital] could not commence the 30-day clock anew by submitting the same claim several months later … .

We conclude that the Supreme Court erred in denying [the hospital’s] motion for summary judgment on the complaint and in granting [the insurer’s] cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Under our decision in Sound Shore [106 AD3d 157], the 30-day period for [the insurer] to pay or deny the claim did not begin to run until March 26, 2012, when [the hospital] submitted the Form NF-5, which contained the information needed. Because [the insurer] did not pay or deny the claim within 30 days thereafter, it was precluded from raising defenses. In other words, the defective “claim” submitted in December 2011 did not start the 30-day clock, so [the insurer’s] denial in January 2012 was of no effect … . Mount Sinai Hosp v New York Cent Mut Fire Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 05779, 2nd Dept 8-13-14

 

You might also like
(Harmless) Error for Prosecutor to Ask If Other Witnesses’ Testimony Was Untrue and to Ask About Defendant’s Silence Upon Apprehension
PLAINTIFF’S RECKLESS ACTIONS SEVERED ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN ANY ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE AND THE ACCIDENT.
PLAINTIFF DEEMED TO HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT BEFORE SIGNING, LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AGAINST HER ATTORNEYS PROPERLY DISMISSED.
IF THE SORA COURT’S RELIANCE ON THE VICTIM’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEFENDANT, WAS ERROR, UNDER THE FACTS, IT WAS HARMLESS ERROR.
THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT A DOCTOR ORDERED THE RESTRAINT OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, AS OPPOSED TO NEGLIGENCE, WAS THE APPROPRIATE THEORY; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE 2 1/2 YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Failure to Wear a Harness Precluded Recovery in a Labor Law 240 (1) Action
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR ADVERSE POSSESSION AND TRESPASS CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A DEFENDANT’S MISTAKEN BELIEF HE OR SHE HAD A RIGHT TO ENTER DOES NOT DEFEAT LIABILITY FOR TRESPASS (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE THERE ARE TWO POSSIBLE CAUSES OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND THE TRIER OF FACT WOULD HAVE TO RESORT TO SPECULATION ABOUT WHETHER THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE, THE ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Move to Sever Unrelated Counts of Indictment Constituted Ineffective... Insufficient Proof of an Agreement to Assume a Mortgage at the Time Deed Tr...