April 24, 2020

Pravel, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50457(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pravel-inc-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op50457u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: April 24, 2020
Citation: 2020 NY Slip Op 50457(U)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Split result
Issues: Policy issues Provider's prima facie case
Legal questions: Claimant's prima facie case on motions (see the maps)

Cite as

Pravel, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 50457(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

The insurer failed to prove effective policy cancellation because it lacked admissible proof of timely filing with the DMV. The assignor was neither the named insured nor a member of the insured's household. Under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (2) (a) and (3), the insurer had to demonstrate filing of the cancellation notice within 30 days of its effective date. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the order to deny the insurer's summary judgment motion. It affirmed denial of the provider's cross motion because the provider failed to establish an untimely denial or a timely denial that was conclusory, vague or legally meritless under Insurance Law § 5106 (a).

Reported in New York Official Reports at Pravel, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50457(U))

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Pravel, Inc., as Assignee of Austin, Bijon, Appellant,
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant. Richard T. Lau & Associates (Anna Peereira of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered July 17, 2018. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

The motor vehicle accident in question occurred on September 4, 2013. Defendant’s motion was based on its alleged cancellation of the subject insurance policy on August 28, 2013. However, the papers defendant submitted in support of its motion failed to demonstrate, by admissible proof, that it had filed a copy of the notice of cancellation with the Department of Motor Vehicles within 30 days of the effective date of the cancellation as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (2) (a) (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [3]; Matter of Progressive Classic Ins. Co. v Kitchen, 46 AD3d 333 [2007]; Matter of Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. v Barnes, 30 AD3d 523 [2006]; Advanced [*2]Med. Care, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 50 Misc 3d 137[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50130[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016]; GL Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 48 Misc 3d 141[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51239[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Thus, defendant has not demonstrated that the cancellation of the policy was effective with respect to plaintiff’s assignor, who was not the named insured or a member of the insured’s household (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [3]). Consequently, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied.

Plaintiff’s cross-moving papers failed to establish either that defendant had failed to deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Consequently, the Civil Court properly denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk
Decision Date: April 24, 2020

Legal questions

A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.

Claimant's prima facie case on motions

Open the full map

On summary judgment or another pretrial motion, what must a no-fault claimant show to establish its prima facie case?

This decision: Insufficient: claimant did not prove the claim was overdue (not paid or timely denied)

Held the claimant's cross motion properly denied because its papers did not show the insurer failed to deny within 30 days or issued a timely denial that was conclusory, vague or without merit.

Proof sufficientMailing/receipt not shownOverdue not shownBusiness-record foundation lackingOther element missingThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 1,063 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 247 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

Advanced Med. Care, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50130(U))The insurer failed to establish effective policy termination because it did not sufficiently prove timely filing of the termination notice with DMV. The insurer sought summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims based on alleged termination of the policy.
GL Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51239(U))The insurer failed to prove effective cancellation against an assignor outside the named insured's household because timely DMV filing was unproved.
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 08933)The provider failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment because the insurer partially paid and denied the claim within 30 days.
Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51292(U))The provider failed to establish summary judgment entitlement because nonpayment alone did not show an absent or legally insufficient denial.

Cited by

Prompt Med. Group, Inc. v Foremost Signature Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51977(U))The insurer failed to prove proper cancellation notice or that cancellation was effective against an assignor outside the insured's household.

Similar decisions

SK Prime Med. Supply v Permanent Gen. Assur. Corp. (2019 NY Slip Op 52052(U))The insurer established effective policy cancellation before the accident by proving proper mailing and timely filing with the DMV. The insurer sought summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claim for lack of coverage after cancellation for nonpayment of the premium.
Pravel, Inc. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50644(U))The insurer's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211 (a) (8) was granted on appeal.
Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 26387)The insurer failed to establish effective policy cancellation because its submissions did not conclusively prove timely filing with DMV. Although the insurer demonstrated mailing of a termination notice to the policyholder under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1), its affidavit and purported DMV notification record did not establish proper filing within 30 days of termination under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (2) (a).
JPC Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50562(U))The insurer failed to establish policy exhaustion because its claim specialist did not lay a sufficient foundation for the payment log.
Akai Acupuncture, P.C. v Foremost Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50630(U))The insurer failed to prove mailing of a Florida policy cancellation notice and was denied dismissal on its no-coverage defense.