Could the insurer contest the validity of the provider’s assignment of benefits, or had it waived that defense?

Short answer: Settled statewide by the Court of Appeals. Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers (Court of Appeals 2007, 6-1) settled that a defect or deficiency in the assignment does not implicate a lack of coverage, so an insurer that does not timely seek verification of the assignment (65-3.5, 65-3.11 [c]) or deny on that ground is precluded from contesting it, and a claim form stating the signature is 'on file' satisfies any prima facie burden absent timely verification. It adopted the Second and Third Department line (New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v NY Cent. 2004, Nyack v Metropolitan 2005, Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate 2005, LMK 2006). Before 2007 some trial courts held the assignment an essential, non-waivable element (Siegel, Civ Ct Kings 2004; T&G Med. Supplies v National Grange, Civ Ct 2005; Elite Med. Care, Civ Ct 2006) and an Appellate Term dissent (Golia, J., Medwide 2005, Davydov 2009) would not extend waiver to a paper that is not an assignment at all or names another entity; these are superseded or minority views. Open edges: whether waiver applies where no assignment exists at all (App Term 2d says yes: Urban Radiology 2013, Beal-Medea 2016; but AD2 in South Nassau 2025 upheld, as not irrational, a master arbitrator's lack-of-standing ruling on an objection first raised at the hearing), and the insurer wins when it timely requests a proper assignment and does not get it (Doshi 2006; Sound Shore 2013).

Scope. Deciding this question means ruling on an insurer's defense that the claimant (a provider, hospital or supplier suing or arbitrating as assignee) has no valid assignment of the injured person's no-fault benefits: the assignment is missing, unsigned or marked signature "on file", unauthenticated, undated, names no assignee or a different entity, was signed by or for a minor, is only an authorization to pay, or was revoked (11 NYCRR 65-3.11 [b]-[d]). It covers both whether the defense succeeds on the merits and whether the insurer forfeited it by not requesting verification of the assignment or the original assignment form in time (65-3.5, 65-3.11 [c]), not stating the defect in a timely denial, or not raising it in its answer or before the arbitrator, and whether proof of the assignment is part of the claimant's prima facie case. Categories record what the court held on the assignment challenge in this case.

Based on 109 decisions in our database, the most recent decided October 29, 2025.

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

Leading authorities

Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 09067) Court of Appeals, 2007Assignment defects are not coverage defenses; precluded without timely verificationAn insurer that received claim and assignment forms stating the patient's signature was 'on file' and neither sought verification of the assignment nor paid or denied within 30 days is precluded from contesting the assignment's validity, because a defective assignment does not implicate a lack of coverage; such a form satisfies any prima facie burden absent timely verification.
In our view, any defect or deficiency in the assignment between Browne and the hospital simply does not implicate a lack of coverage warranting exemption from the preclusion rule. We therefore determine that the failure by Travelers to seek verification of the assignment in a timely manner prevents the carrier from litigating the issue now.
Later history: Affirms Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 34 AD3d 532 (2d Dept 2006) (post 9796); dissent by Pigott, J.
Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 06192) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2005'Signature on file' forms; no timely objection, so no standing defenseSupreme Court erred in holding the hospital lacked standing without proof of a valid assignment from each patient: the facility forms said the signatures were 'on file' and the insurer neither objected to the forms nor sought verification of the assignments, so it waived any defense based on them.
The hospital facility forms submitted on behalf of the respective patients indicated that the signature of each patient/assignor was “on file.” There was no allegation or evidence that the defendant timely objected to the completeness of the forms or sought verification of the assignments as required by 11 NYCRR 65.15 (d). Accordingly, the defendant waived any defenses based thereon
Later history: Cited with approval in Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers (9310); Beal-Medea (5024) cites it as 'affd 9 NY3d 312', but that decision affirmed 34 AD3d 532 (post 9796)
LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 04486) Appellate Division, Third Department, 2006Third Department: unauthenticated assignments; objection waived without 10-day verificationThe insurer's objection that the assignor's signatures on the assignment forms were not authenticated was waived because it did not request verification of the assignments within the 10-day period the regulation allows.
Inasmuch as defendant failed to request verification of the assignments at issue within the 10-day period proscribed by regulation, its objection to the assignments was waived.
Later history: Cited with approval in Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers (9310, fn 5)
New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 05336) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006Unsigned assignment forms at trial: hospitals lacked standingAfter a nonjury trial, the judgment for the hospitals was reversed and the complaint dismissed because the proof at trial included only unsigned assignment of benefit forms, so the hospitals lacked standing; the decision does not discuss verification or waiver.
The defendant correctly contends that the plaintiff hospitals lacked standing. The proof adduced at trial included unsigned assignment of benefit forms (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 [1994]).
Beal-Medea Prods., Inc. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50594(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, 2016Assignment not part of prima facie case unless timely raisedDismissing at trial because the assignment of benefits was not admitted was error: a no-fault plaintiff need not submit an executed assignment to make its prima facie case, and the assignment becomes a subject of inquiry only if the insurer first shows it timely and properly raised the issue.
Rather, for the assignment of benefits to become a subject of inquiry, a defendant must first demonstrate that it timely and properly raised an issue with respect to the assignment
Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51430(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006Timely verification request for proper assignment tolls; claim not overdueWhere the insurer timely requested and followed up for a proper assignment, and the NF-AOB supplied lacked the provider's signature, the claimant's failure to supply the requested assignment tolled the insurer's time, so benefits were not overdue and the complaint was dismissed.
Since plaintiff has yet to provide the requested verification consisting of an assignment with the provider’s signature, the statutory period in which defendant has to pay or deny the claim has been tolled
Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co. 90 NY2d 27430-day preclusion rule on which the waiver of assignment objections rests.Not in our database.
Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos. 90 NY2d 195Lack-of-coverage exception to preclusion; Hospital for Joint Diseases held an assignment defect is not within it.Not in our database.
Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 233 AD2d 433, lv dismissed 89 NY2d 1030Early holding that an invalid-assignment defense not preserved by timely objection is lost; cited in Hospital for Joint Diseases fn 5 and many App Term memoranda.Not in our database.
Leon v Martinez 84 NY2d 83An assignment requires a perfected transaction vesting a present right in the assignee; relied on in 9820 and the Hospital for Joint Diseases dissent.Not in our database.
St. Clare's Hosp. v Allcity Ins. Co. 201 AD2d 718Failure to object to claim-form completeness within 10 days waives defects; ancestor of the assignment-waiver line (cited in 10480, 10484).Not in our database.

Governing regulations

Whether the insurer lost the defense by not seeking verification or denying in time comes from the case law, not from Part 65.

11 NYCRR 65-3.11 (b) For direct payment a provider must submit an authorization to pay benefits or a properly executed assignment on the NF-3, NF-4, NF-5 or NF-AOB; an authorization to pay does not transfer all rights from the injured person to the provider.
11 NYCRR 65-3.11 (c) The insurer may request the original assignment or authorization to pay in writing to establish proof of claim; under the case law an insurer that does not seek it in time, or deny on the defect, may not contest the assignment.

Also relevant

Chosen by us from the regulation text and the decisions on this question that cite it. Each link opens our copy of the regulation, which is unofficial; the official text is in the NYCRR.

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.

Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that groundOn the merits, the assignment or the claimant's showing is adequate, or the alleged defect is not a defectClaimant lacks a valid assignment, or failed to prove one where the issue was preserved; claim fails or is not yet dueValidity of the assignment, the assignee's identity, or the timeliness of the insurer's objection cannot be decided on this recordRing: rules on the question, but another ground decided the caseContrasted, distinguished or limitedDeclined to follow, questioned, overruled or reversedCited Show ordinary citations

Layout

The map loads when you scroll to it.

How the rule was applied, by court

Court	Defense waived	Assignment sufficient	Assignment defense upheld	Issue of fact	Total
Court of Appeals	1	0	0	0	1
Appellate Division, First Department	1	0	0	0	1
Appellate Division, Second Department	9	1	2	0	12
Appellate Division, Third Department	1	0	0	0	1
Appellate Term, First Department	5	0	0	0	5
Appellate Term, Second Department	30	23	4	3	60
Trial courts in the First Department	2	0	3	0	5
Trial courts in the Second Department	8	7	8	0	23
Trial courts in the Fourth Department	1	0	0	0	1

Decisions (109)

Every decision in our database that rules on this question: highest court first, then by department, newest first. 40 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.

Court of Appeals (1 decision)

Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 09067) Leading case Court of Appeals, November 20, 2007Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that groundHeld the insurer precluded from contesting the assignment marked signature 'on file' because it neither sought verification nor timely paid or denied, as an assignment defect does not implicate lack of coverage and such a form satisfies any prima facie burden.

Appellate Division, First Department (1 decision)

Countrywide Ins. Co. v 563 Grand Med., P.C. (2008 NY Slip Op 03059) Appellate Division, First Department, April 3, 2008Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that ground (also decides)Held in one sentence, citing Hospital for Joint Diseases, that the insurer had waived its objection to the provider-assignee's standing; the judgment was nonetheless reversed because a triable issue existed on medical necessity.

Appellate Division, Second Department (12 decisions)

Matter of South Nassau Community Hosp. v Avis Budget Group, Inc. (2025 NY Slip Op 05954) Appellate Division, Second Department, October 29, 2025Claimant lacks a valid assignment, or failed to prove one where the issue was preserved; claim fails or is not yet dueUpheld as rational, under deferential article 75 review, the master arbitrator's ruling that the hospital lacked standing for want of an assignment of benefits, despite the hospital's argument that the insurer waived the defense by raising it late.
Matter of Fast Care Med. Diagnostics, PLLC/PV v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 03831) Appellate Division, Second Department, May 30, 2018On the merits, the assignment or the claimant's showing is adequate, or the alleged defect is not a defect (also decides)Held the master arbitrator's ruling that the assignment, executed by the infant patient and his mother, was ineffective was not based on any requirement in established law or regulations, supporting vacatur.
Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 02390) Appellate Division, Second Department, April 10, 2013Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that ground (also decides)Held the claim was not premature: the insurer's only effective verification request, which sought a signed assignment in place of the 'on file' form among other items, was never followed up, so its initial toll expired.
New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 01628) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 1, 2011Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that groundHeld the insurer could not object that the NF-5 and assignment of benefits forms supplied were outdated, because its verification requests sought exactly those January 2004 forms and the hospital provided what was requested.
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Countrywide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 09024) Appellate Division, Second Department, November 13, 2007Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that ground (also decides)Held the insurer waived any defenses based on the assignment of benefits forms because it failed to timely object to their completeness or seek verification of the assignments.
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. (2007 NY Slip Op 04484) Appellate Division, Second Department, May 22, 2007Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that groundHeld the insurer waived its lack-of-standing defense because there was no evidence it timely objected to the completeness of the claim forms or sought verification of the assignor's assignment.
Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 08214) Appellate Division, Second Department, November 14, 2006Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that groundHeld the insurers could not defeat the hospital's summary judgment motion because their failure to timely object to the claim forms or seek verification of the assignment waived any defenses based on them.
New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 05336) Leading case Appellate Division, Second Department, July 5, 2006Claimant lacks a valid assignment, or failed to prove one where the issue was preserved; claim fails or is not yet dueReversed the judgment after a nonjury trial and dismissed the complaint because the hospitals' trial proof included only unsigned assignment of benefit forms, so they lacked standing.

Show all 12 decisions

Nyack Hosp. v Encompass Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 08962) Appellate Division, Second Department, November 21, 2005Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that ground (also decides)Held the insurer waived any defense based on the lack of a valid assignment because it neither timely objected to the completeness of the claim forms nor sought verification of the assignment.
Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 06192) Leading case Appellate Division, Second Department, August 1, 2005Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that groundHeld the insurer waived any defense based on the assignments because the hospital forms stated the patients' signatures were 'on file' and the insurer neither timely objected to the forms nor sought verification of the assignments.
Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 02235) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 21, 2005Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that ground (also decides)Held the insurer's failure to object to the adequacy of the hospital's claim forms within 10 days waived any defense based on them, including the alleged lack of a valid assignment of benefits.
New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 05626) Appellate Division, Second Department, June 28, 2004Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that groundRejected the insurer's objections for lack of proof of the assignments because its affidavits failed to establish that it mailed verification requests for the assignments, so it raised no triable issue.

Appellate Division, Third Department (1 decision)

LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 04486) Leading case Appellate Division, Third Department, June 8, 2006Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that groundHeld the insurer's objection that the assignors' signatures on the assignment forms were not authenticated was waived because it did not request verification of the assignments within the 10-day regulatory period.

Appellate Term, First Department (5 decisions)

Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C. v ELRAC, Inc. (2017 NY Slip Op 50234(U)) Appellate Term, First Department, February 22, 2017Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that ground (also decides)Held the insurer waived any objection based on lack of proof of assignment because it never sought verification of the assignments; summary judgment for the provider also rested on untimely denial and an insufficient scope-of-practice defense.
Tutto Anesthesia v American Country Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50738(U)) Appellate Term, First Department, May 18, 2015Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that ground (also decides)Held the insurer waived any objection based on lack of proof of the assignments because it never sought verification of them.
P.L.P. Acupuncture, P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50484(U)) Appellate Term, First Department, March 14, 2008Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that ground (also decides)Held the insurer waived any objection based on lack of proof of a valid assignment because it never sought verification of the assignment.
Fair Price Med. Supply, Inc. v St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 27173) Appellate Term, First Department, May 4, 2007Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that groundHeld the insurer waived any objection based on lack of proof of the assignment because it never sought verification of the assignment, so judgment for the provider was proper.
Laufer v Lumberman's Mut. Cas. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 51632(U)) Appellate Term, First Department, October 11, 2005Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that groundHeld that the insurer's failure to object to the adequacy of the claim form within 10 days of receipt waived any defenses based on alleged technical deficiencies in the assignment of benefits.

Appellate Term, Second Department (60 decisions)

Beal-Medea Prods., Inc. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50594(U)) Leading case Appellate Term, Second Department, April 8, 2016Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that groundHeld dismissal at trial for failure to admit the assignment was error, because an executed assignment is not part of the provider's prima facie case and becomes an issue only if the insurer first shows it timely and properly raised it.
Boris Kleyman Physician, P.C. v IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51810(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, December 17, 2014Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that groundHeld the insurer's no-assignment standing objection unpreserved because first raised on appeal, and meritless anyway since the claim forms stated the assignor's signature was 'on file', as in Hospital for Joint Diseases.
Urban Radiology, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50850(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, May 14, 2013Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that groundHeld the trial court erred in dismissing for lack of an assignment in evidence because, although the claim forms contained no assignment language, the insurer never timely objected to the forms' completeness or sought verification of the assignment, waiving the defense.
St. Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52063(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, November 26, 2010On the merits, the assignment or the claimant's showing is adequate, or the alleged defect is not a defectHeld the hospital complied with verification requests for NF-5 forms signed by the assignors, marked signature 'on file', by supplying the executed assignments and authorizations, and the insurer's attorney's denial of receipt lacked personal knowledge.
Golden Age Med. Supply, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52010(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, November 19, 2010On the merits, the assignment or the claimant's showing is adequate, or the alleged defect is not a defect (also decides)Rejected the defense that the assignor revoked the assignment in a later stipulation, because 11 NYCRR 65-3.11 (d) bars unilateral revocation after the services were rendered.
AVA Acupuncture, P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51350(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, July 29, 2010Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that ground (also decides)Held the insurer's discovery demand for a copy of the assignment palpably improper because it never sought verification of the assignment nor denied the claim on that ground, so it was precluded from litigating the assignment's validity.
Speciality Surgical Servs. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50715(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, April 16, 2010Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that ground (also decides)Rejected the standing challenge that the assignment named a different entity, because the discrepancy was apparent on the submitted assignment and the insurer neither sought verification nor denied on that ground, so it was precluded.
St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50488(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, March 19, 2010Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that ground (also decides)Rejected the insurer's argument that the assignment was defective because signed by a minor, holding it waived any such defense by not timely objecting to the form or seeking verification of the assignment.

Show all 60 decisions

Loading the list… If it does not appear, the full list is in the plain-text version.

Trial courts in the First Department (5 decisions)

Chiropractic Neurodiagnostics, P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26049) Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, February 8, 2006Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that groundHeld that the insurer waived defects in the assignment form (no named assignee, no accident or execution date) because it did not object within 10 days of receipt, all the defects being technical.
Fair Price Med. Supply, Inc. v St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52598(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, January 5, 2006Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that groundHeld the plaintiff's failure to introduce an assignment at trial did not defeat its claim because the insurer, which conceded raising no objection, waived assignment deficiencies by not objecting to the claim form within 10 days.
T & G Med. Supplies, Inc. v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 25357) Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, August 30, 2005Claimant lacks a valid assignment, or failed to prove one where the issue was preserved; claim fails or is not yet dueHeld the provider lacked standing and dismissed the action because the NF-AOB was undated and named no assignee, and standing via a properly executed assignment cannot be waived despite the insurer's denial omitting the defect.
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Inwood Hill Med., P.C. (2005 NY Slip Op 51101(U)) Supreme Court, New York County, July 12, 2005Claimant lacks a valid assignment, or failed to prove one where the issue was preserved; claim fails or is not yet dueHeld that providers claiming as assignees must proffer complete, properly executed assignments to have standing, and dismissed the counterclaims for assignors as to whom no complete valid assignment was submitted, strictly construing the regulations.
T&G Med. Supplies, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50636(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, February 4, 2005Claimant lacks a valid assignment, or failed to prove one where the issue was preserved; claim fails or is not yet dueDismissed the supplier's action for lack of standing because its unauthenticated assignment named no assignee, accident or assignment date and the assignor never received the supplies, holding an effective assignment a non-waivable element the assignee must prove.

Trial courts in the Second Department (23 decisions)

Top Choice Pharm. Corp. v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50867(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, September 14, 2022Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that ground (also decides)Rejected the insurer's standing defense that a minor had signed the assignment because the insurer never timely sought verification of the assignment or objected to it, which waived any defect.
Montvale Surgical Ctr., LLC. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50106(U)) District Court of Suffolk County, Third District, January 20, 2020Claimant lacks a valid assignment, or failed to prove one where the issue was preserved; claim fails or is not yet due (also decides)Denied the provider's summary judgment motion in part because its assignment of benefits form referred to a different accident date than the subject accident, so the necessary assignment element was not shown.
Brownsville Advance Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52255(U)) District Court of Nassau County, First District, December 19, 2011On the merits, the assignment or the claimant's showing is adequate, or the alleged defect is not a defect (also decides)Rejected the insurer's prematurity defense based on an unanswered verification demand that included a signed assignment, because the assignment and claim form on file were in the required form and the repetitive demand stated no reason or defect.
Globe Surgical Supply v Allstate Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50884(U)) Supreme Court, Nassau County, April 18, 2011Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that ground (also decides)Dismissed the insurer's affirmative defense that the assignments were invalid or non-existent because an assignment defect is not a lack-of-coverage defense and the insurer had not asserted it within 30 days of the claims.
New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Countrywide Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 50764(U)) Supreme Court, Nassau County, March 17, 2009Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that ground (also decides)Held that the hospital forms stating the assignor's signature was 'on file' sufficed because the insurer's objection to the forms and its verification requests for revised assignment forms were untimely, so the defense was waived.
Friendly Physician, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50747(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, April 6, 2007On the merits, the assignment or the claimant's showing is adequate, or the alleged defect is not a defectHeld the assignor's letter asking to drop all claims did not revoke the assignment, because 65-3.11 (d) bars unilateral revocation after services are rendered and no notice to the assignee was shown.
DWP Pain Free Med. P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26531) District Court of Suffolk County, Third District, December 7, 2006Claimant lacks a valid assignment, or failed to prove one where the issue was preserved; claim fails or is not yet dueHeld the insurer properly requested a hard-copy, properly executed assignment because it need not accept electronic signatures and an 'on file' provider signature is insufficient; since the provider never responded, the claim was premature and dismissed.
Elite Med. Care, P.C. v Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51397(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, July 13, 2006Claimant lacks a valid assignment, or failed to prove one where the issue was preserved; claim fails or is not yet dueDismissed the complaint after trial because the claimant offered no evidence of a properly executed assignment, an element it must prove, and waiver rulings about defective forms did not cover a total absence of proof of assignment.

Show all 23 decisions

Loading the list… If it does not appear, the full list is in the plain-text version.

Trial courts in the Fourth Department (1 decision)

Proscan Radiology of Buffalo v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51242(U)) City Court of Buffalo, June 27, 2006Insurer barred from contesting the assignment because it did not timely object, verify, deny or plead on that ground (also decides)Held the insurer could not argue that the physician claimant was not the named assignee because it listed him on the claim, did not question the assignment in its denial, and so waived the objection.

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.