New York's Highest Court Holds That Timely Proof Of Claim Does Not Serve As Timely Notice Of Accident
January, 2012
In New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 7149 (2011), New York's Highest Court, the Court of Appeals, reversed decisions of the Appellate Division and trial court, when it held that a health care service provider, as an assignee of a person injured in a motor vehicle accident, cannot recover no-fault benefits by timely submitting the required proof of claim after the 30-day period for providing written notice of the accident expired.
On July 19, 2008, Joaquin Benitez was injured in a traffic accident and was subsequently treated at New York Presbyterian Hospital ("Presbyterian") until July 26, 2008. Id. at *1. On the date of Mr. Benitez's discharge, he executed an Assignment of No-Fault Benefits form wherein he assigned to Presbyterian "all rights, privileges and remedies to payment for health care services" which Presbyterian provided to Mr. Benitez under Article 51 of the Insurance Law (the No-Fault statute). Mr. Benitez also signed a completed NYS Form NF-5. Id. at *1 -*2. However, neither Mr. Benitez nor Presbyterian provided the written notice of accident to Mr. Benitez's insurance carrier, Country Wide Insurance Company ("Country Wide"), within 30 days of the accident, as is required by the New York Insurance Regulations, 11 NYCRR 65-1.1. Id. at *2.
On August 25, 2008, Presbyterian, as Mr. Benitez's assignee, sought no-fault benefits from Country Wide in the amount of $48,697.63. Id. Presbyterian submitted to Country Wide several documents, including the proof of claim (Form NF-5), which Country Wide received 40 days after the accident. Country Wide proceeded to deny Presbyterian's claim on the basis that the insurer did not receive timely notice of the accident under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1. Id.
11 NYCRR 65-1.1, the mandatory personal injury protection endorsement for motor vehicle liability insurance policies, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Action against [Insurance] Company. No action shall lie against the Company unless, as a condition precedent thereto, there shall have been full compliance with the terms of this coverage.
Notice. In the event of an accident, written notice... shall be given by, or on behalf of, each eligible injured person, to the Company, or any of the Company's authorized agents, as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event more than 30 days after the date of the accident...
Proof of Claim; Medical, Work Loss, and Other Necessary Expenses. In the case of a claim for health service expenses, the eligible injured person or that person's assignee or representative [e.g., a health care services provider] shall submit written proof of claim to the Company... as soon as reasonably practicable but, in no event later than 45 days after the date services are rendered....
Id. at *3. Additionally, 11 NYCRR 65-3.3 states that the written notice of accident will be deemed satisfied by the insurer's receipt of a completed application for motor vehicle no-fault benefits (NYS Form NF-2) or receipt of a completed hospital facility form (NYS Form NF-5). Id. at *3-*4.
In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals noted that the "notice of accident" and "proof of claim" are independent conditions precedent to a no-fault insurer's liability. Id. at *4. The regulations require that an accident victim submit a notice of claim to the insurer as soon as reasonably practicable, but not later than 30 days. Id. Then, the injured party or assignee, usually a hospital, must submit proof of claim for medical treatment within 45 days after service is rendered. Id. While the submission of the hospital proof of claim can fulfill the notice of an accident requirement, the 30 day notice of accident must still be satisfied. Id. The Court further noted that the "notice of accident" and "proof of claim" time requirements were in place in order to prevent the fraud and abuse associated with lengthier time frames. Id. Presbyterian's interpretation of the regulations, which effectively lengthen the notice of accident requirement "would under-cut the anti-fraud purpose of the reduced time periods, particularly in cases where treatment does not occur until months or years after the accident." Id. at *5. Moreover, the Court stated that Presbyterian as the assignee of Mr. Benitez, stood in his shoes and did not acquire any greater rights than Mr. Benitez. Id. at *6; see Matter of International Ribbon Mills, 36 NY2d 121, 126, 325 N.E.2d 137, 365 N.Y.S.2d 808 (1975).
The Court did acknowledge that there are situations in which late notice of an accident is permissible, such as in situations where the victim is a pedestrian or occupant of a vehicle and the insurer is not readily identifiable. Id. at *5. However, in such instances, the regulations will still require written proof with a clear and reasonable justification for the failure to comply with the time limitation. Id. The case at hand was not such a situation in which late notice would be permissible, as the insurer was known at the outset.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that the submission of the proof of claim within 45 days of the date that health care services are rendered may not serve as timely written notice of accident after the 30-day period for providing written notice of the accident has expired. Id. at *6. Because no written notice of accident was given, there was a failure to fully comply with the terms of the no-fault policy--a condition precedent to insurer liability. Id. Thus, the assignment was worthless. Country Wide's motion for summary judgment was granted and Presbyterian's Complaint was dismissed. Id.
Learning Point
In reaching its decision, the Court upheld the longstanding principle that an assignee never stands in a position that is better than its assignor. Accordingly, while the submission of the hospital proof of claim can serve as notice of an accident, in order to do so, the proof of claim must be submitted within 30 days after the accident, as this is the time period required for the assignor to provide notice of his or her accident to the insurer.
Back to New York CM Report of Recent Decisions (2011v4) 2011 Volume 4 Table of Contents
