Legal Questions

What must a no-fault claimant prove at trial to make out its prima facie case for overdue benefits?

A decision decides this question when, at or after a trial, it rules whether the claimant suing for no-fault benefits (usually a provider-assignee, sometimes the injured person) proved its prima facie case. The ruling comes as a decision or judgment after a nonjury or jury trial, a directed verdict or CPLR 4401 motion at the close of the claimant's case, a CPLR 4404 motion, a decision on stipulated facts submitted in place of a trial, or an appeal from one of these. Deciding the question means holding that the claimant's trial proof (testimony, claim forms, the insurer's denial forms, interrogatory answers or a notice to admit) was sufficient or insufficient, or holding that the claimant does or does not have to prove an extra element at trial, such as a business-records foundation for its claim forms, an assignment, the absence of a timely denial or, against MVAIC, its assignor's qualified/covered-person status.

Settled at the Appellate Division, no conflicting department. No Court of Appeals decision in the database addresses the trial burden directly. Viviane Etienne (2015) set the elements on summary judgment (claim mailed to and received by the insurer, payment overdue; no proof of the merits and no business-records foundation for the truth of the claim forms), and the appellate courts apply those elements at trial. The First Department Appellate Division did so in Health E. (2025): the insurer's admission of receipt established the prima facie case at trial, and it was the insurer's burden to prove that verification requests tolled the 30 days. The Second Department Appellate Term says the same in its own words: at trial the claimant proves submission/receipt and nonpayment (Alev 2013; V.S. Med. 2015; Healthy Way 2019), and the insurer must prove a defense that is not precluded, i.e. a timely denial (Davydov 2009; Urban Radiology 2013; TAM Med. Supply 2018). That is lighter than the Second Department's summary judgment burden, where the claimant must also show the claim was not timely denied or that the denial was conclusory, vague or without merit (Wave Med. v Hertz 2022 states the contrast expressly). So, on who proves the denial/verification part of the overdue element, the texts show no First/Second Department difference at trial; the one decision that put it on the claimant at trial, the First Department Appellate Term's Health E. (2024), was reversed by the Appellate Division. The real conflict was historical: from 2006 to 2013 the Second Department (Bajaj, App Term 2007; Carothers, App Term 2009 and App Div 2010) required a CPLR 4518 foundation for the claim forms at trial and held that the insurer's admissions or a notice to admit could not supply it, while the First Department Appellate Term accepted such admissions (Fair Price 2007; P.L.P. 2008; Central Nassau 2010, declining to follow Bajaj). Viviane Etienne (2d Dept 2013, overruling Carothers and Art of Healing; affd 2015) ended that split, and the Appellate Term has accepted a biller's testimony or the insurer's denial form since (Peace of Mind 2014, 2015; Eagle Surgical 2014). Against MVAIC, the Second Department Appellate Term treats qualified/covered-person status (timely notice of intention, residency, no other insurance, non-ownership of the vehicle) as part of the claimant's case at trial (Peace of Mind v MVAIC 2011 through 2022); one Kings County Civil Court decision held otherwise (Kipor 2009).

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

Leading authorities

  • Health E. Ambulatory Surgical Ctr. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 06648) Appellate Division, First Department, 2025First Department: admitted receipt proves case; verification is insurer's burdenAt a nonjury trial, the insurer's judicial admission of receipt in its own summary judgment papers, admitted without a witness, established the provider's prima facie case under Viviane Etienne, and the insurer conceded it did not pay or deny within 30 days. Proving that verification requests were sent (tolling the 30 days) was the insurer's burden at trial, not the provider's burden to disprove.
    Defendant’s admission that it had received plaintiff’s notice of claim was sufficient to establish plaintiff’s prima facie case at trial (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498, 501 [2015]). As to whether defendant’s payment was overdue (see id.), defendant conceded that it did not pay or deny the claim within the prescribed 30-day period.
  • Central Nassau Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v GEICO (2010 NY Slip Op 20244) Appellate Term, First Department, 2010First Department: insurer's deemed admissions prove the case without witnessesFacts deemed admitted by the insurer's failure to answer a notice to admit (that the attached bills were true copies of bills it received and that it had not paid them) conclusively established the provider's entitlement at trial, so a directed verdict without witnesses was proper; the court declined to follow Bajaj to the extent it holds otherwise.
    Because defendant admitted that the two bills attached to the notice were “true and accurate” copies of the bills received by defendant and that defendant has not paid those bills, plaintiff established its entitlement to recover the overdue assigned first-party no-fault benefits
  • Urban Radiology, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50850(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, 2013Second Department: at trial, unlike summary judgment, insurer proves defensesOnce the provider presented its prima facie case at trial, dismissal for failure to offer an assignment was error, because the insurer had not timely objected to the claim forms or sought verification of the assignment. At trial, unlike on summary judgment, the provider need not show that there is no defense; the insurer must prove a meritorious defense that is not precluded.
    at a trial, unlike upon a provider’s motion for summary judgment, a provider is not required to “show that there is no defense to the cause of action or that the cause of action or defense has no merit” (CPLR 3212 [b]). Rather, it is defendant’s burden to show that it has a meritorious defense
  • Peace of Mind, Social Work, P.C. v Travelers Aetna Prop. Cas. Corp. (2014 NY Slip Op 50475(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, 2014Second Department: after Viviane Etienne, biller testimony suffices; no CPLR 4518 foundationApplying Viviane Etienne (2d Dept 2013), the testimony of the provider's third-party biller established its prima facie case at trial, rejecting the insurer's argument that the witness had to lay a CPLR 4518 business-records foundation for the claim forms; with no defense offered, the judgment for the provider was affirmed.
    Pursuant to the holding in Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. ( ___ AD3d ___, 2013 NY Slip Op 08430 [2d Dept 2013]), the testimony of plaintiff’s witness was sufficient to establish plaintiff’s prima facie case.
  • Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 52322(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, 2013Second Department: trial burden is submission and nonpaymentA witness with personal knowledge of the provider's practices laid a foundation for the claim forms, which were prima facie evidence of the fact and amount of the loss, and testified to their submission and to nonpayment; that made out the prima facie case at trial, and since the insurer offered no defense, judgment for the provider was directed.
    The witness also offered testimony pertaining to the submission of the claim forms to defendant and of defendant’s failure to pay the claims. Thus, plaintiff established its prima facie case
  • Avicenna Med. Arts, P.L.L.C. v MVAIC (2016 NY Slip Op 51535(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, 2016Against MVAIC: covered-person status is part of the trial caseA provider suing MVAIC failed its prima facie case at trial, despite its billing manager's testimony that the claims were mailed, because it did not show that a timely notice of intention to make claim, a condition of the assignor's covered-person status, was submitted to MVAIC.
    As plaintiff did not establish that such an affidavit had been submitted to MVAIC, plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie case (see Insurance Law §§ 5202 [b]; 5208, 5221 [b] [2]).
  • Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co. 90 NY2d 274Preclusion rule; cited at trial for the insurer's burden to prove that its defense is not precluded, i.e. that it timely denied (Davydov 2009; Urban Radiology 2013; TAM Med. Supply 2018).Not in our database.
  • Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co. 64 NY2d 304Cited by Urban Radiology (2013) for the defendant's burden at trial to show a meritorious defense.Not in our database.
  • Matter of Leon RR 48 NY2d 117Business-records chain (each participant acting in the regular course of business); applied to third-party billers' claim forms at trial before Viviane Etienne (e.g. post 16824, 2013).Not in our database.
  • Zuckerman v City of New York 49 NY2d 557Proof in admissible form; relied on in Bajaj (2007) to require admissible proof of the claim at trial.Not in our database.
  • Matter of Union Indem. Ins. Co. of N.Y. 89 NY2d 94Judicial admissions; relied on in Health E. (2025) to admit the insurer's motion papers as proof of receipt at trial without a witness.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.

Claimant's trial proof held to make out its prima facie caseInsufficient: claimant did not prove at trial that the claim was submitted (mailed to and received by the insurer)Insufficient: claimant did not prove at trial that payment was overdue (unpaid, or not paid or denied within 30 days)Insufficient: claim forms not admitted as business records / insurer's admissions held not to prove the claimInsufficient at trial for another reason (MVAIC eligibility, assignment, eligibility for benefits)Ring: 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

Decisions (109)

Every decision in our database that rules on this question: highest court first, then by department, newest first. 90 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.