Which limitations period governs a first-party no-fault claim against an insurer, self-insurer or MVAIC: six or three years?

A decision decides this question when it determines (or applies, to measure timeliness) the limitations period for an action or arbitration by an injured person or assignee to recover first-party no-fault benefits: six years under CPLR 213 (2) because the claim is contractual, or three years under CPLR 214 (2) because the liability is created by statute. The answer depends on who owes the benefits: an insurer under a policy, a self-insurer (bus companies, transit authorities, rental-car and truck-rental companies, government vehicles) or MVAIC. Categories therefore record both the period the court adopted and the kind of payor it adopted it for.

Settled statewide by the Court of Appeals. The period depends on the payor, and each branch is now settled. Self-insurers: three years under CPLR 214 (2), held by the Court of Appeals in Contact Chiropractic (2018, 4-3), resolving a split between the First Department (three years: M.N. Dental 2011, Richard Denise 2012) and the Second Department (six years: Contact Chiropractic 2016). Insurers that issued a policy: six years under CPLR 213 (2), uniform Appellate Division authority (Mandarino, 2d Dept 2007; Glenwood, 1st Dept 2008; Benson, 1st Dept 1987; Micha, 3d Dept 1983) acknowledged by the Contact Chiropractic majority. The Court of Appeals has not decided it (Judge Stein's concurrence says the question was not before the Court), so strictly this branch is settled at the Appellate Division level. MVAIC: three years, both Appellate Terms (Kings Highway, App Term 2d Dept 2008; Downtown Integrated, App Term 1st Dept 2010), resting on Matter of MVAIC v Aetna (Ct App 1996). No Appellate Division decision on MVAIC in the database.

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

Leading authorities

Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. (2018 NY Slip Op 03093) Court of Appeals, 2018Statewide: claims against self-insurers carry three years (CPLR 214 [2])A claim by an injured person's assignee for first-party no-fault benefits against a self-insurer (NYC Transit Authority) is governed by the three-year period of CPLR 214 (2), because without an insurance contract the liability exists only by statute; the action was dismissed as time-barred. Concurrence: the period for insurers that issue policies was not before the Court. Three judges dissented (six years for all).
We conclude that the three-year statute of limitations as set forth in CPLR 214 (2), which governs disputes with respect to liabilities created by statute, should control this case.
Later history: None after this decision in the database. It reversed 17136 (App Div, 2d Dept, 2016), which had affirmed 16771 (App Term, 2d Dept, 2013). Followed for self-insurers by 17567 (2019), 2045/2047 (2021) and 17933 (2023).
M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. (2011 NY Slip Op 01525) Appellate Division, First Department, 2011First Department: self-insurer liability is statutory, so three yearsBecause there was no contract between the assignor and the NYC Transit Authority, the carrier's obligation to pay no-fault benefits arises from the statute and CPLR 214 (2)'s three-year period applies; the complaint was dismissed as time-barred.
Since it is undisputed that there existed no contract between plaintiff’s assignor and the New York City Transit Authority, the common carrier’s obligation to provide no-fault benefits arises out of the no-fault statute. Therefore, the three-year statute of limitations as set forth in CPLR 214 (2) is applicable here.
Later history: Followed by 16603 (Richard Denise, 1st Dept 2012, reversing 16368). The Court of Appeals adopted its rule in 17459 (2018).
Mandarino v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 01693) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2007Claims against insurers under a policy are contractual: six yearsAn assignee's action against an insurer for no-fault benefits under an automobile policy is contractual and governed by the six-year period of CPLR 213 (2), even though the policy terms are mandated by the Insurance Law; MVAIC v Aetna and Aetna Life v Nelson (statutory recoupment claims) distinguished.
Although the terms of the insurance policy may be mandated by various provisions of the Insurance Law, this does not alter the fact that the dispute is fundamentally contractual in nature and not a creature of statute. Accordingly, the six-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213 (2) applies to this action
Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v Glenwood Med., P.C. (2008 NY Slip Op 01598) Appellate Division, First Department, 2008First Department: six years against insurers, including arbitration demandsA provider's arbitration claim against an insurer is subject to six years under CPLR 213 (2), not three under CPLR 214 (2); it accrued when the insurer denied it in full, and a later reconsideration did not extend accrual, so the demand was untimely.
The claim, which is subject to the six-year statute of limitations in CPLR 213 (2), not the three-year statute in CPLR 214 (2)
Kings Highway Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC (2008 NY Slip Op 28157) Appellate Term, Second Department, 2008Claims against MVAIC carry three years (CPLR 214 [2])A provider's action against MVAIC accrued 30 days after MVAIC received the claim and, commenced more than three years later, was barred by CPLR 214 (2); MVAIC was not estopped from relying on the statute.
Because plaintiff did not commence this action until November of 2004, it was barred by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 214 (2)
Gurnee v Aetna Life & Cas. Co. 55 NY2d 184, 193Dictum that the 'applicable six-year Statute of Limitations' governs claims for withheld first-party benefits; relied on by Mandarino and the Contact Chiropractic dissent.Not in our database.
Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 89 NY2d 214Three years (CPLR 214 [2]) for MVAIC's statutory recoupment claim against an insurer; accrual when all facts necessary to the claim have occurred. Basis of the MVAIC three-year line; distinguished in Mandarino.Not in our database.
Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Nelson 67 NY2d 169No-Fault Law creates new statutory rights; three years for an insurer's statutory lien under Insurance Law 5104 (b). Relied on by the Contact Chiropractic majority and M.N. Dental.Not in our database.
Benson v Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. 134 AD2d 214Six years for a no-fault claim against an insurer; the claim accrues when payment becomes overdue.Not in our database.
Micha v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. 94 AD2d 835Six years for a no-fault claim against an insurer (Third Department).Not in our database.
Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v Suero 38 AD3d 544Six years for an uninsured-motorist claim against a self-insurer; the Second Department and Appellate Term extended it to no-fault claims against self-insurers until Contact Chiropractic (2018).Not in our database.
Matter of De Luca (Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.) 17 NY2d 76Six years for an uninsured-motorist claim against MVAIC under a policy endorsement; cited by plaintiffs arguing for six years against MVAIC (rejected in Stracar and the App Term MVAIC line).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.

Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2])Claim against a self-insurer carries the six-year contract period (pre-2018 Second Dept / App Term 1st Dept line)Claim against a self-insurer carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2])Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2])Ring: 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.

Position by court

Court	Six years: insurer	Six years: self-insurer	Three years: self-insurer	Three years: MVAIC	Total
Court of Appeals	0	0	1	0	1
Appellate Division, First Department	1	0	2	0	3
Appellate Division, Second Department	1	1	0	0	2
Appellate Term, First Department	2	2	0	2	6
Appellate Term, Second Department	16	3	4	21	44
Trial courts in the First Department	0	0	0	1	1
Trial courts in the Second Department	4	1	1	3	9

Decisions (66)

Every decision in our database that rules on this question: highest court first, then by department, newest first. 21 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)

Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. (2018 NY Slip Op 03093) Leading case Court of Appeals, May 1, 2018Claim against a self-insurer carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2])Held that a first-party claim against a self-insured transit authority is governed by CPLR 214 (2)'s three-year period because, absent an insurance contract, the liability exists only by statute, so the action was time-barred.

Appellate Division, First Department (3 decisions)

Richard Denise M.D. P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. (2012 NY Slip Op 04925) Appellate Division, First Department, June 19, 2012Claim against a self-insurer carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2])Held the claim against the self-insured transit authority barred by the three-year period of CPLR 214 (2) because its obligation to provide no-fault benefits arises out of the statute.
M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. (2011 NY Slip Op 01525) Leading case Appellate Division, First Department, March 1, 2011Claim against a self-insurer carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2])Held the claim time-barred under the three-year period of CPLR 214 (2) because, with no contract between the assignor and the self-insured transit authority, its no-fault obligation arose solely from statute.
Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v Glenwood Med., P.C. (2008 NY Slip Op 01598) Leading case Appellate Division, First Department, February 21, 2008Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2])Held a provider's arbitration claim against the insurer subject to the six-year contract period of CPLR 213 (2), not the three-year statutory period, and untimely because demanded more than six years after the full denial.

Appellate Division, Second Department (2 decisions)

Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. (2016 NY Slip Op 00325) Appellate Division, Second Department, January 20, 2016Claim against a self-insurer carries the six-year contract period (pre-2018 Second Dept / App Term 1st Dept line)Held that a claim for first-party no-fault benefits against a self-insured defendant is essentially contractual and subject to six years, so the action was not time-barred.
Mandarino v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 01693) Leading case Appellate Division, Second Department, February 27, 2007Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2])Held an assignee's action against an insurer for no-fault benefits under an automobile policy contractual and governed by the six-year period of CPLR 213 (2), even though statute mandates the policy terms, so the action was timely.

Appellate Term, First Department (6 decisions)

Wexford Med., P.C. v Commerce Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51193(U)) Appellate Term, First Department, July 19, 2013Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Held the action against the insurer time-barred under the governing six-year period, because the claim accrued 30 days after the latest permissible claim submission in early 2003 and suit began in September 2009.
Omega Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC (2011 NY Slip Op 51259(U)) Appellate Term, First Department, July 6, 2011Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the three-year limitations period of CPLR 214 (2) to the claim against MVAIC but held the action timely because the claim accrued on the post-verification denial date.
New Millenium Med. Supply v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op51820(U)) Appellate Term, First Department, October 22, 2010Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Held the claim under the insurance policy barred by the six-year period, because it accrued 30 days after the insurer received the claim, not on the date of its untimely denial.
Downtown Integrated Med. Servs., P.C. v MVAIC (2010 NY Slip Op 51778(U)) Appellate Term, First Department, October 15, 2010Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2])Held claims against MVAIC, whose obligation exists solely by statute, carry the three-year period, rejecting the analogy to self-insurers subject to six years, and dismissed the claims as time-barred.
J & S Med. Supplies, Inc. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51595(U)) Appellate Term, First Department, July 22, 2009Claim against a self-insurer carries the six-year contract period (pre-2018 Second Dept / App Term 1st Dept line)Held, assuming without deciding that the defendant was a self-insurer, that the first-party action was governed by the six-year period and therefore timely commenced.
Richard Denise, M.D., P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. (2009 NY Slip Op 29313) Appellate Term, First Department, July 22, 2009Claim against a self-insurer carries the six-year contract period (pre-2018 Second Dept / App Term 1st Dept line)Rejected the self-insurer's three-year argument and held a no-fault claim against it governed by six years, finding no basis to distinguish no-fault benefits from UM benefits, which remain contractual though statutorily mandated.

Appellate Term, Second Department (44 decisions)

ZZ Acupuncture, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 51205(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, August 30, 2024Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Applied the six-year period for no-fault actions against an insurance company, dismissing two causes of action whose claims were received more than six years before suit and keeping the later ones.
J.C. Healing Touch Rehab, P.C. v MVAIC (2024 NY Slip Op 50393(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, March 1, 2024Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the three-year limitations period to the claim against MVAIC and granted dismissal because the action was commenced after three years and nothing in the record supported estopping MVAIC.
Blano Med., P.C. v Hertz Co. (2023 NY Slip Op 51406(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, December 15, 2023Claim against a self-insurer carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Stated that a no-fault action against a self-insurer carries the three-year statutory period but denied dismissal because the defendant did not establish it was self-insured.
Arguelles M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50926(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, September 23, 2022Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Held the claims, deemed overdue in November 2007, barred because the action was commenced in 2018, after the six-year contract limitations period applicable to no-fault claims against the insurers had expired.
New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v GEICO (2022 NY Slip Op 22300) Appellate Term, Second Department, September 23, 2022Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Applied the well-settled six-year period to the provider's claim against the insurer and held the insurer failed to show prima facie that the action was untimely, since it did not prove the denial was received early enough.
Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v MVAIC (2022 NY Slip Op 50786(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, August 5, 2022Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Held MVAIC established prima facie that the action was commenced after the three-year limitations period expired, and the provider raised no issue of fact as to timeliness, so dismissal was granted.
Performance Plus Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2022 NY Slip Op 50592(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, June 10, 2022Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Held MVAIC established prima facie that the action was commenced after the three-year limitations period expired, and the provider raised no issue of fact as to timeliness, so dismissal was granted.
Milky Way Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC (2022 NY Slip Op 50590(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, June 10, 2022Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Held MVAIC established prima facie that the action was commenced after the three-year limitations period expired, and the provider raised no issue of fact as to timeliness, so dismissal was granted.

Show all 44 decisions

Vincent Med. Servs., P.C. v Omni Indem. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50141(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, February 18, 2022Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Held the provider's claim against the insurer subject to the six-year contract limitations period and time-barred, because payment fell due in January 2006 and the action was not commenced until 2017.
Midwood Total Rehab Med., P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51205(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, December 10, 2021Claim against a self-insurer carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2])Held that because the vehicle was self-insured by U-Haul and defendant was only its claims handler, the three-year period of CPLR 214 (2) applied and the action commenced nearly six years after mailing was time-barred.
Midwood Total Rehab Med., P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51206(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, December 10, 2021Claim against a self-insurer carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2])Held that because the vehicle was self-insured by U-Haul and defendant was only its claims handler, the three-year period of CPLR 214 (2) applied and the action commenced nearly six years after mailing was time-barred.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v MVAIC (2021 NY Slip Op 50450(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, May 14, 2021Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Held that if MVAIC received the claim in 2010, the cause of action accrued more than three years before the 2015 commencement, so dismissal on limitations grounds would be with prejudice.
Cautious Care Med., P.C. v Omni Indem. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51384(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, November 13, 2020Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Applied the six-year contract period of CPLR 213 (2) to the claim against the insurer and dismissed it because the action was commenced more than six years after the claim accrued, 30 days after receipt.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 52073(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, December 13, 2019Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Held MVAIC established prima facie that the action was commenced after the three-year limitations period expired, and the provider raised no issue of fact on timeliness, so the complaint was dismissed.
Sheepshead Bay Oral Surgery, PLLC v Unitirin Direct Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 52028(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, December 13, 2019Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Held the action against the insurer untimely under the CPLR 213 (2) contract limitations period, measured from accrual 30 days after the insurer received the claim, which the provider did not rebut.
Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 52049(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, December 13, 2019Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Held MVAIC showed the action on four causes of action was commenced after the three-year limitations period expired, and the provider raised no issue of fact on timeliness.
Compas Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51687(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, October 18, 2019Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the three-year limitations period to the claim against MVAIC and affirmed dismissal because MVAIC showed the action was commenced after three years and plaintiff raised no issue of fact.
Compas v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51246(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, August 2, 2019Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the three-year limitations period to the claim against MVAIC and affirmed dismissal because MVAIC showed the action was commenced after three years and plaintiff raised no issue of fact.
Jamaica Dedicated Med. Care, P.C. v USAA Cas. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51171(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, July 12, 2019Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Treated the six-year contract period of CPLR 213 as governing the provider's claim against the insurer and counted its uncontroverted expiration before service against extending the time to serve in the interest of justice.
Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51159(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, July 12, 2019Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the three-year limitations period to the claim against MVAIC and affirmed dismissal because MVAIC showed the action was commenced after three years and plaintiff raised no issue of fact.
Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v NY City Tr. Auth. (2019 NY Slip Op 50420(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, March 22, 2019Claim against a self-insurer carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2])Held the action against the self-insured transit authority barred by the three-year period of CPLR 214 (2), because it was commenced more than three years after the cause of action accrued.
Cautious Care Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 50279(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, March 8, 2019Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the three-year limitations period to the claim against MVAIC and affirmed dismissal because the action was commenced after three years and the tolling argument was unpreserved and meritless.
Sheepshead Bay Oral Surgery, PLLC v Unitrin Direct Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51058(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, March 1, 2019Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)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.
Clinton Place Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2017 NY Slip Op 51893(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, December 22, 2017Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the three-year limitations period to the claim against MVAIC and reversed the provider's judgment because MVAIC showed the action was commenced after three years and plaintiff raised no issue of fact.
Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v Mvaic (2016 NY Slip Op 51522(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, October 13, 2016Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the three-year limitations period to the claim against MVAIC and affirmed dismissal because MVAIC showed the action was commenced after three years and plaintiff raised no triable issue.
Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC (2016 NY Slip Op 51416(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, September 27, 2016Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the three-year limitations period to the claim against MVAIC and affirmed dismissal because MVAIC showed the action was commenced after three years and plaintiff raised no triable issue.
Reliable Physical Therapy, P.C. v MVAIC (2016 NY Slip Op 50919(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, June 6, 2016Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the three-year limitations period to the claim against MVAIC and granted dismissal because MVAIC showed the action was commenced after three years and plaintiff raised no issue of fact on timeliness.
Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC (2015 NY Slip Op 51232(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, August 5, 2015Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the three-year limitations period to the provider's claim against MVAIC and dismissed it because MVAIC showed the action was commenced after three years and plaintiff raised no issue of fact.
A.M. Med., P.C. v Continental Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50389(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, March 16, 2015Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Held the action untimely under the six-year contract limitations period because the insurer received the claims by February 2001, the causes accrued by March 2001, and suit came in June 2007.
Dyckman Med. Diagnostic/Treatment, P.C. v Granite State Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51026(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, July 1, 2014Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Held the insurer failed to show that the six-year contract limitations period had expired, because its conclusory denial of receipt did not rebut the process server's affidavit showing timely 2003 service.
Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. (2013 NY Slip Op 23410) Appellate Term, Second Department, December 3, 2013Claim against a self-insurer carries the six-year contract period (pre-2018 Second Dept / App Term 1st Dept line)Affirmed denial of the self-insurer's limitations motion, reasoning that a bonded public carrier owes the same no-fault duties as an insurer and that the six-year contract period applies where both statutory and contractual liability exist.
New York Med. Rehab., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 23218) Appellate Term, Second Department, June 17, 2013Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Held the action against the insurer time-barred under the six-year period, because the claim accrued on the January 2003 denial and the action was first commenced only by the February 2009 filing.
Richmond Pain Mgt., P.C. v Aetna/Travelers Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50900(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, May 22, 2013Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Held the insurer failed to show the six-year limitations period had expired, because the claim accrued in 2002 and the action was commenced in April 2003 by service, with nunc pro tunc filing permitted.
EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51720(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, September 16, 2011Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Held the insurer failed to establish the claim was time-barred under the six-year contract period, because the bill alleged in the complaint could not have become overdue before July 2001, within six years of the June 2007 filing.
DJS Med. Supplies, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51304(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, July 7, 2011Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Held the action against the insurer untimely under the six-year contract period, because the claim accrued 30 days after receipt in August 2002 and a later denial did not postpone accrual.
Roman Chiropractic, P.C. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52090(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, May 10, 2011Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Applied the CPLR 213 (2) six-year period to the claim against the insurer and held the insurer failed to show any claim accrued more than six years before suit, offering no denials or proof of the pay-or-deny lapse.
Flatlands Acupuncture, P.C. v Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 21133) Appellate Term, Second Department, April 5, 2011Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Applied the six-year contract period to the provider's claims against the insurer, which the parties agreed governed, barring claims for services more than six years and 210 days before commencement but not the later claims.
Acupuncture Works, P.C. v MVAIC (2010 NY Slip Op 50646(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, April 9, 2010Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the three-year period of CPLR 214 (2) to a claim against MVAIC, holding later denials did not postpone accrual, so the action commenced in 2006 was time-barred.
A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v New York City Tr. Auth. (2009 NY Slip Op 52832(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, August 31, 2009Claim against a self-insurer carries the six-year contract period (pre-2018 Second Dept / App Term 1st Dept line)Rejected the self-insurer's three-year CPLR 214 (2) defense and reinstated the action, applying its prior holding that claims against a self-insured entity carry the same six-year period as claims against an insurer.
Spring World Acupuncture, P.C. v NYC Tr. Auth. (2009 NY Slip Op 29229) Appellate Term, Second Department, May 22, 2009Claim against a self-insurer carries the six-year contract period (pre-2018 Second Dept / App Term 1st Dept line)Held that an action to recover first-party no-fault benefits from a self-insured transit authority carries the same six-year period as one against an insurer, because a self-insurer's obligations are coextensive with an insurer's, as with UM claims.
Linden Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2008 NY Slip Op 52188(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, November 5, 2008Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2])Vacated arbitration awards because the arbitrator's application of six years was contrary to settled law; the three-year period of CPLR 214 (2) governs claims against MVAIC and barred this arbitration.
Shtarkman v MVAIC (2008 NY Slip Op 51447(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, July 8, 2008Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the three-year period of CPLR 214 (2) to a provider's claim against MVAIC, holding the action commenced more than three years after the claim became overdue was barred.
Boulevard Multispec Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2008 NY Slip Op 50872(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, April 14, 2008Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2])Held the provider's action against MVAIC, accruing in November 2001 and commenced in January 2006, barred by the three-year limitations period of CPLR 214 (2), and refused to estop MVAIC from asserting it.
Kings Highway Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC (2008 NY Slip Op 28157) Leading case Appellate Term, Second Department, April 14, 2008Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2])Held the provider's claim against MVAIC, which accrued 31 days after MVAIC received it, barred by the three-year limitations period of CPLR 214 (2), and rejected equitable estoppel against MVAIC.

Trial courts in the First Department (1 decision)

In Line Chiropractic, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2005 NY Slip Op 50275(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, January 25, 2005Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the undisputed three-year period to the claims against MVAIC and held the action timely because the claims accrued when they became overdue 30 days after receipt, less than three years before commencement.

Trial courts in the Second Department (9 decisions)

Chiropractic Life, P.C. v Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51221(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, December 21, 2021Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Applied the six-year contract limitations period to the claim against the insurer but denied dismissal because the insurer failed to establish when the claim accrued.
Action Potiential Chiropractic, PC v Grange Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51306(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, June 29, 2021Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Held that the six-year limitations period applied to the first-party claim and had expired, so the provider could not add a new insurer defendant without satisfying the relation-back doctrine.
Mandracchia v Allstate Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50882(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, April 28, 2010Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Held the action against the insurer barred by the six-year contract period of CPLR 213 (2), computing accrual from the service date plus 180 days for submission and 30 days to pay, which made the 2008 action untimely.
Chester Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v Kemper Cas. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 52009(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, October 7, 2008Claim against an insurer under a policy carries the six-year contract period (CPLR 213 [2]) (also decides)Applied the six-year contract period of CPLR 213 (2) to the claim against the policy-issuing insurer and held the action timely because accrual ran from when benefits became overdue, not from the earlier denial.
Pinnacle Open MRI, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 25000) Nassau District Court, January 3, 2008Claim against a self-insurer carries the six-year contract period (pre-2018 Second Dept / App Term 1st Dept line)Held that a first-party claim against a self-insured rental company carries the six-year contract period of CPLR 213 (2), not three years, because the rental agreement makes the self-insurer stand in an insurer's shoes; self-insurance was also unproved.
Maple Med. Acupuncture, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2007 NY Slip Op 50827(U)) Nassau District Court, April 20, 2007Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the undisputed three-year period of CPLR 214 (2) to the claim against MVAIC, but denied dismissal because the record did not show when the bills were received and the claim accrued.
Universal Acupuncture Pain Servs. P.C. v MVAIC (2006 NY Slip Op 52343(U)) District Court of Nassau County, First District, December 5, 2006Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (also decides)Applied the three-year statute of limitations of CPLR 214 (2) to claims against MVAIC because its obligation exists only by statute, and dismissed the earlier claims as untimely.
Alleviation Supplies Inc. v Enterprise Rent-A-Car (2006 NY Slip Op 26177) Civil Court, Richmond County, April 10, 2006Claim against a self-insurer carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2])Held that a self-insurer's liability for first-party benefits arises solely from statute, not contract, so the three-year period of CPLR 214 (2) applied and the action brought nearly five years after accrual was untimely.

Show all 9 decisions

Stracar Med. Servs., P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2005 NY Slip Op 51987(U)) Civil Court, Kings County, December 7, 2005Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2])Rejected plaintiff's six-year argument and held a provider's first-party claim against MVAIC, a statutory entity with no insurance policy, is governed by the three-year period of CPLR 214, dismissing the action.

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.