March 1, 2019
Sheepshead Bay Oral Surgery, PLLC v Unitrin Direct Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51058(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/sheepshead-bay-oral-surgery-pllc-v-unitrin-direct-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51058u/
- Decided
- March 1, 2019
- Citation
- 2019 NY Slip Op 51058(U) · 64 Misc 3d 132(A)
- Posture
- Motion to dismiss (CPLR 3211)
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- Statute of limitations
- Legal questions
- No-fault statute of limitations (see the maps)
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.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Sheepshead Bay Oral Surgery, PLLC v Unitrin Direct Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51058(U))
| Sheepshead Bay Oral Surgery, PLLC v Unitrin Direct Ins. Co. |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 51058(U) [64 Misc 3d 132(A)] |
| Decided on March 1, 2019 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on March 1, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
2017-168 K C
against
Unitrin Direct Ins. Co., Appellant.
Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman, LLP (Harlan R. Schreiber of counsel), for appellant. Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (David Landfair of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered August 24, 2016. The order denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
A first-party no-fault cause of action accrues 30 days after the insurer’s receipt of the claim (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8; DJS Med. Supplies, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 129[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51304[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Kings Highway Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC, 19 Misc 3d 69 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Boulevard Multispec Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 19 Misc 3d 138[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50872[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). The six-year statute of limitations for contract actions is applicable to this cause of action (see CPLR 213 [2]; Mandarino v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 37 AD3d 775 [2007]). As defendant has established that it received all of the claim forms at issue no later than June 6, 2008, plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on July 6, 2008, and this action, which was commenced over six years later, on February 10, 2015, is untimely.
Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: March 01, 2019
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.
Which limitations period governs a first-party no-fault claim against an insurer, self-insurer or MVAIC: six or three years?
This decision: Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Held the action untimely under the six-year contract limitations period because the insurer received the claims by June 6, 2008, the cause accrued July 6, 2008, and suit came in February 2015.
Of the 56 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 21 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- DJS Med. Supplies, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51304(U))A no-fault claim accrues 30 days after the insurer receives it; a later denial does not postpone accrual.
- Kings Highway Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC (2008 NY Slip Op 28157)A provider's claim against MVAIC was time-barred because untimely verification did not postpone accrual.
- Boulevard Multispec Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2008 NY Slip Op 50872(U))A provider's claim against MVAIC was time-barred because a verification request after payment became overdue did not postpone accrual.
- Mandarino v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 01693) FollowedA provider's action to recover no-fault benefits under an insurance policy is governed by the six-year contractual limitations period.
Similar decisions
- Sheepshead Bay Oral Surgery, PLLC v Unitirin Direct Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 52028(U))The provider's action was untimely because its claim accrued 30 days after the insurer received the bill, a showing the provider did not rebut.
- Cautious Care Med., P.C. v Omni Indem. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51384(U))A first-party no-fault cause of action accrues 30 days after the insurer receives the claim and carries a six-year limitations period.
- A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v New York City Tr. Auth. (2009 NY Slip Op 52832(U))An action to recover first-party no-fault benefits from a self-insurer is subject to the six-year statute of limitations.
- Arguelles M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50926(U))The provider's action was time-barred because its submission evidence placed the payment due date more than six years before suit.
- Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Unitrin Direct Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50649(U))The provider's owner affidavit raised a triable issue about timely submission of the claim despite the insurer's evidence of nonreceipt.