Legal Questions

Did a party’s evidence establish that it mailed a no-fault claim, denial, verification request or examination notice?

Deciding this question means ruling on whether the evidence offered by a party proves that a specific no-fault document was mailed (and, where it matters, on what date and to the proper address), so that the presumption of receipt arises. The rule applied everywhere is that the presumption may be created by proof of actual mailing (an affiant with personal knowledge of the mailing, certified-mail receipts tied to the item, affidavits of service, postal-stamped mailing logs or certificates) or by an affidavit of someone with knowledge of a standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed; a bare denial of receipt does not rebut it. It covers any document in the no-fault claim process, whoever mailed it: the insurer's denials of claim, verification and follow-up requests, IME and EUO scheduling letters, and the provider's or claimant's claim forms (NF-3/NF-5 bills, NF-2) and verification responses, together with the opposing party's evidence of non-receipt offered to rebut the presumption. The categories record both the mailing party (insurer or provider/claimant) and the outcome.

Settled statewide by the Court of Appeals. The rule is the Court of Appeals' presumption-of-receipt rule (Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828 [1978]: office practice must be geared to ensure the item is always properly addressed and mailed; denial of receipt alone does not rebut), restated for no-fault by the Second Department (Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d 547 [2006]; St. Vincent's, 2008) and applied in the same words by the First and Third Departments. In the database the Court of Appeals applies it to a provider's proof of mailing claim forms (Viviane Etienne, 2015: affidavit of a billing company president who described its mailing practices and mailed the forms himself was sufficient). No department disagrees on the rule; decisions differ only on how much detail an affidavit must give. Two disagreements below the Appellate Division ended: the Appellate Term, 2d Dept, in Contemp. Med. Diag. (2005) had required the affiant to state a duty to ensure compliance or personal knowledge of compliance, which Delta Diagnostic v Chubb (2007) disavowed; and the Nassau County District Court (Carle Place Chiropractic, Acupuncture Prima Care, 2007-2008) rejected bare 'place it in an envelope and mail it' procedures until it held itself bound by St. Vincent's (Uniondale Chiropractic, 2008). The same rule governs insurers' and providers' mailings.

Leading authorities · Authority map · Decisions by court · Plain-text version (Markdown)

Leading authorities

  • Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 04787) Court of Appeals, 2015Provider's proof of mailing claim forms; billing-company affidavit sufficesA provider must submit admissible proof that the claim forms were mailed to and received by the insurer; an affidavit of the third-party billing company's president who described its mailing practices and mailed the forms himself was sufficient.
    Such proof may include the verification of treatment form and/or an affidavit from a person or entity (1) with knowledge of the claim and how it was sent to the insurer or (2) who has relied upon the forms in the performance of their business.
    Later history: Affirms Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 33 (2d Dept 2013), post 6516
  • St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 04072) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2008Second Department: standard-office-practice affidavit proves insurer's mailingAn affidavit of an employee with knowledge of the insurer's standard office practices or procedures designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, attesting that a proper denial was issued on its date, was admissible evidence of timely mailing and raised a triable issue defeating the provider's summary judgment motion.
    the defendant submitted admissible evidence in the form of an affidavit of an employee with knowledge of the defendant’s standard office practices or procedures designed to ensure that items were properly addressed and mailed
  • New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 03558) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006Second Department: same test applied to provider's mailing of billNo presumption arose where the provider's billing representative neither stated that he mailed the claim nor described the office's mailing practice; a certified-mail receipt and USPS tracking printout not tied to the claim, without a signed return receipt, did not prove receipt.
    the certified mail receipt and the United States Postal Service “Track and Confirm” printout do not prove that the particular claim alleged in the second cause of action was actually received where, as here, there is no evidence that this claim was mailed to Allstate under that certified mail receipt number
  • American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas (2013 NY Slip Op 07273) Appellate Division, First Department, 2013First Department: affidavits establish mailing of IME noticesSworn affidavits of the examining physician and his employee were competent evidence that IME scheduling notices were mailed; a properly executed affidavit of service raises a presumption of mailing that a mere denial of receipt does not rebut.
    Plaintiff submitted competent evidence that the notices scheduling the claimant’s medical examinations were mailed, as well as the failure to appear, based on the sworn affidavits of the scheduled examining physician and his employee
  • Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Infinite Ortho Prods., Inc. (2015 NY Slip Op 03340) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2015Second Department: affidavit must explain addressing and Postal Service hand-offAn affidavit describing an automated mailing system was insufficient because it did not say how envelopes were addressed to ensure a correct address or how and when the sealed envelopes reached the Postal Service; the insurer did not prove timely and proper mailing of its denials.
    Andre did not state, in his affidavit, how the envelopes were addressed so as to ensure that the address was correct or whether the envelope was addressed by the automated system or by an employee.
  • Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 27345) Appellate Term, Second Department, 2007Appellate Term: personal knowledge of mailing or practice description sufficesThe insurer showed timely mailing of its denials through its standard office practice; the affiant need not state a duty to ensure compliance with the practice or personal knowledge of compliance (clarifying Contemp. Med. Diag., 2005): personal knowledge of the mailing or a description of the standard practice suffices.
    it is sufficient for the affiant to set forth that he or she possessed personal knowledge that the mailing occurred or describe the standard office practice or procedure used to ensure that items were properly addressed and mailed
  • Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray 46 NY2d 828Source of the presumption rule as quoted in the database: office practice must be geared to ensure the likelihood that the item is always properly addressed and mailed; denial of receipt standing alone does not rebut the presumption.Not in our database.
  • Matter of Gonzalez (Ross) 47 NY2d 922Cited with Nassau v Murray for when proof of office practice creates a presumption of receipt.Not in our database.
  • News Syndicate Co. v Gatti Paper Stock Corp. 256 NY 211A properly mailed letter is presumed received (cited by trial courts).Not in our database.
  • Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v Donnelly 22 NY3d 1169Cited by the Third Department for the point that the presumption arises only after proper mailing is shown.Not in our database.
  • Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co. 286 AD2d 679The quoted formulation: presumption created by proof of actual mailing or of a standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed (cited by about 300 decisions in the database).Not in our database.
  • Hospital for Joint Diseases v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. 284 AD2d 374No presumption where the affiant neither mailed the item nor described the office's mailing practice.Not in our database.
  • Matter of Rodriguez v Wing 251 AD2d 335Proof of proper mailing gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of receipt.Not in our database.
  • Badio v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 12 AD3d 229First Department: denial of receipt standing alone is insufficient to rebut the presumption (IME notices).Not in our database.

Authority map

Each circle is a decision on this question, placed by court and date; its colour is the position it took. Lines are citations between them. Select a circle (or find a decision by name) to see its links and summary. The same decisions are listed by court below the map.

The insurer's (or its agent's) proof established mailing of its denial, verification request or IME/EUO noticeThe insurer's proof did not establish mailing of its denial, verification request or IME/EUO noticeThe provider's or claimant's proof established mailing of its claim form, NF-2 or verification responseThe provider's or claimant's proof did not establish mailing of its claim form, NF-2 or verification responseThe mailing proof (of either party) left only a triable issue of fact on whether or when the item was mailed or receivedDifferent mailing results for different documents or claims in one decisionRing: rules on the question, but another ground decided the caseContrasted, distinguished or limitedDeclined to follow, questioned, overruled or reversedCited
Layout

The map loads when you scroll to it.

How the rule was applied, by court

Court Insurer proved mailing Insurer failed to prove Provider proved mailing Provider failed to prove Triable issue on mailing Mixed rulingsTotal
Court of Appeals0010001
Appellate Division, First Department153000018
Appellate Division, Second Department1013811134
Appellate Division, Third Department0110002
Appellate Term, First Department5313671080
Appellate Term, Second Department740205524188471173
Trial courts in the First Department204522134
Trial courts in the Second Department483829936133
Trial courts in the Fourth Department0100001

Decisions (1,476)

Every decision in our database that rules on this question: highest court first, then by department, newest first. 829 turn on it; the others rule on it alongside a different main ground (marked "also decides"). The one-sentence summaries describe what each court said on this question.

How this page is made: the decisions are those in our case-law database that cite this question's leading cases or were tagged with its subject. A language model read each one in full and recorded whether it rules on the question, the position it took and a one-sentence summary; a second, independent reading checked every entry. Court, department, date and the citation links come from the database. Read the decision before relying on it.