# Was the insurer validly served with process, and does the court have personal jurisdiction over it? **Short answer: Settled at the Appellate Division, no conflicting department.** The rules are settled and applied, not disputed. Second Department (Appellate Division and the Appellate Term, which decides most of these cases): service on the Superintendent under Insurance Law § 1212 binds an authorized insurer and a bare denial of receipt does not rebut it (NY & Presbyt. Hosp. 2006, Hospital for Joint Diseases 2008, Montefiore 2008, Westchester Med. Ctr. 2010); CPLR 312-a service is incomplete without a signed acknowledgment (Gateway 2011, Hellander 2015, Longevity 2020 and many companions); an out-of-state insurer not authorized here and not transacting business here is outside the courts' reach, the plaintiff bears the burden and needs tangible evidence for jurisdictional discovery (Eagle Ins. Co. v Gutierrez-Guzman, 21 AD3d 489 [2005], not in the database; NYC Med. 2004, Compas 2015, Flatlands 2014, Pavlova 2018 and the 2019 American Independent series); lack of personal jurisdiction is no ground to stay a no-fault arbitration (Art of Healing 2013). No Court of Appeals decision on this question is in the database; the governing Court of Appeals rules are general CPLR law (Fischbarg v Doucet, Peterson v Spartan Indus., Fashion Page, Gager v White, Pohlers). The only friction found is at trial level: a 2006 Supreme Court, New York County decision (Heights Chiropractic, 9780) vacated a no-fault arbitration award for lack of jurisdiction over the out-of-state insurer, while the Second Department later held personal jurisdiction is not required for arbitration; and a First Department decision (CURE v Mian 2021) treated the insurer's amenability to arbitration as an issue of fact under Insurance Law § 5107. Scope: Deciding this question means ruling on whether a no-fault insurer (including a self-insurer such as a rental company or transit authority, MVAIC, or an out-of-state fund) that is sued by a provider or claimant, or named as respondent in an article 75 or inter-insurer proceeding, was brought under the court's power: whether service on it was valid (service on the Superintendent of Insurance / DFS under Insurance Law § 1212, on a registered agent, officer or authorized employee under CPLR 311 [a] [1], mail service under CPLR 312-a, VTL § 253, the territorial limits of CCA/UDCA 403-404, the 120-day rule of CPLR 306-b, filing of proof of service), whether the insurer rebutted the process server's affidavit or a traverse hearing is needed, and whether an out-of-state insurer is subject to New York jurisdiction at all (Insurance Law §§ 1212-1213, CCA 404 / CPLR 301-302 long-arm, jurisdictional discovery under CPLR 3211 [d]). It also covers rulings that the insurer waived the objection (CPLR 3211 [e], 320 [b], participation in the litigation) and rulings on whether personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state insurer is needed for, or defeats, no-fault arbitration. Categories record what the court held on service/jurisdiction over the insurer, not who won the case. - Decisions: 137 in the database, the most recent decided 2026-09-23 - Page: https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-topics/service-jurisdiction/ ## Leading authorities - [Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 10596)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/montefiore-med-ctr-v-auto-one-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-10596/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2008. § 1212 service binds insurer; bare denial of receipt fails: Service by delivery to the Assistant Deputy Superintendent and Chief of Insurance under Insurance Law § 1212 was proper; the insurer did not claim its address on file was wrong, and its mere denial of receipt did not rebut the presumption created by the affidavit of service. Vacatur was denied under both CPLR 5015 (a) (1) and CPLR 317. - [American Ind. Ins. Co. v Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. (2013 NY Slip Op 01546)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-ind-ins-co-v-art-of-healing-medicine-p-c-2013-ny-slip-op01546/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2013. No personal jurisdiction needed for no-fault arbitration: Lack of personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state insurer (American Independent) is not a ground under CPLR 7503 (b) to permanently stay no-fault arbitration; the question is the arbitrator's authority under the policy, and Gutierrez-Guzman and Basedow apply only where a court proceeding seeks to bind the insurer. - [NYC Med. & Neurodiagnostic, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 24526)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/nyc-med-neurodiagnostic-p-c-v-republic-w-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-24526/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2004. Plaintiff's burden; discovery only on tangible 'sufficient start': Where an out-of-state insurer served through the Superintendent showed it was not doing business in New York City, the plaintiff bore the burden of showing jurisdiction; conclusory allegations on information and belief were not the 'sufficient start' needed for jurisdictional discovery under CPLR 3211 (d) and Insurance Law § 1213, so the complaint had to be dismissed. The court below also erred by doing its own Internet research. - [Flatlands Med., P.C. v AAA Ins. (2014 NY Slip Op 24048)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/flatlands-med-p-c-v-aaa-ins-2014-ny-slip-op-24048/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2014. Unauthorized out-of-state insurer: no §§ 1212-1213 or long-arm jurisdiction: An out-of-state insurer that showed it was not authorized in New York and wrote no business here could not be reached through service on the Superintendent under Insurance Law § 1212 or § 1213, nor under CCA 404; the insured's driving into New York was not enough, and the plaintiff offered no evidentiary facts, so jurisdiction was never acquired. - [Pavlova v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50943(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pavlova-v-american-ind-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op-50943u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018. Counsel's affirmation cannot show long-arm jurisdiction over insurer: American Independent's employees' affidavits made a prima facie showing that the Civil Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania insurer; plaintiff's attorney's affirmation, made without personal knowledge, did not make the prima facie showing of jurisdiction under CCA 404 (a), so the CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion was granted. - [Richard A. Hellander, M.D., P.C. v Metlife Auto & Home Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 25164)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/richard-a-hellander-m-d-p-c-v-metlife-auto-home-ins-co-2015-ny-slip-op-25164/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2015. CPLR 312-a service incomplete without signed acknowledgment: Mail service under CPLR 312-a was never completed because the insurer never signed and returned the acknowledgment of receipt and the plaintiff tried no other method; an answer pleading the jurisdictional defense was not an appearance, and with no action pending the insurer did not waive the defense by not moving within 60 days (CPLR 3211 [e]). - Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Gutierrez-Guzman, 21 AD3d 489 (not in the database). No long-arm jurisdiction over out-of-state insurer American Independent; the insured's unilateral act of driving into New York is not enough. Cited by 23 decisions in the database (the 2019 American Independent series, Flatlands, Healthwise). - Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Basedow, 28 AD3d 766 (not in the database). Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction a petition to add the out-of-state insurer as a party; distinguished in Art of Healing. - Fischbarg v Doucet, 9 NY3d 375 (not in the database). The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proof; cited in RAZ (7610), JC Healing Touch (6104), Flatbush (5928), Dakiroks (19237). - Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463 (not in the database). Jurisdictional discovery requires a non-frivolous 'sufficient start'; cited in NYC Med., Compas, Nica, Vladenn. - Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 265 (not in the database). Corporate service sustained where the process server reasonably relies on an employee's claim of authority (Pain Mgt. Ctr. of N.J., 17366). - Gager v White, 53 NY2d 475 (not in the database). An unraised personal-jurisdiction objection is waived by participating in the litigation (Central Radiology 6278, Masigla 2971, Charles Deng 2555). - Pohlers v Exeter Mfg. Co., 293 NY 274 (not in the database). Service on a state officer designated by consent is valid beyond a local court's territorial limits; basis of the Buffalo § 1212 decisions (8352, 8390). - Dominguez v Stimpson Mfg. Corp., 207 AD2d 375 (not in the database). If the CPLR 312-a acknowledgment is not returned, the plaintiff must serve another way; cited in Gateway, St. Dominick, Hellander, Active Care. - Matter of Star Boxing, Inc. v DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp., 17 AD3d 372 (not in the database). A notice of petition must be served like a summons (CPLR 403 [c]); cited for article 75 petitions served on an insurer's attorney (R.J. Professional 9170, Eagle v Republic W. 8478). - Rosa v Allstate Ins. Co., 981 F2d 669 (not in the database). Cited by Torres-Jimenez, Delacruz-Gomez and Dakiroks for VTL § 253 not reaching an insurer. ## Governing regulations Governed by the CPLR (301, 302, 306-b, 311, 312-a, 3211), Insurance Law §§ 1212 and 1213, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 253 and the court acts (CCA and UDCA 403, 404), not by Part 65. - [11 NYCRR 65-1.8](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-1-8/) [also relevant]: Policies sold in another state or Canadian province by an authorized insurer, its affiliate or an insurer that filed with the Superintendent provide New York no-fault benefits when the vehicle is used here; under the case law that, not personal jurisdiction, decides whether it must arbitrate. ## Categories - **Jurisdiction upheld**: The court rejects the insurer's challenge to service or jurisdiction (or its claim of non-service offered as an excuse) on the merits: service on the Superintendent of Insurance/DFS under Insurance Law § 1212 on an insurer authorized in New York; service on a registered agent, officer or employee authorized or apparently authorized to accept service (CPLR 311 [a] [1]; Fashion Page); the process server's affidavit is prima facie proof and a mere or conclusory denial of receipt does not rebut it; the insurer failed to show prima facie that service was improper or that jurisdiction is lacking; § 1212 service is valid for a city court outside the county; or a filing/proof-of-service irregularity is cured nunc pro tunc (CCA former 409/411, CPLR 2001) or the time to serve is extended or late service deemed timely (CPLR 306-b). - **Service defective**: The court holds that service on the insurer was improper or never completed: CPLR 312-a mail service without a signed acknowledgment of receipt (and no other service), or a facially defective 312-a affidavit; VTL § 253 used to serve an insurer; delivery to the wrong entity, a third-party administrator's clerk, or someone not authorized to accept service; a notice of petition served by regular mail or on the insurer's attorney (CPLR 403 [c]); service outside the court's territory where the insurer could and should have been served within it (CCA/UDCA 403); service after 120 days without an extension (CPLR 306-b); a motion adding the insurer as a party made without proper notice. Typical results: complaint or petition dismissed (usually without prejudice), default judgment denied or vacated under CPLR 5015 (a) (4). - **No jurisdiction over insurer**: The court holds that the insurer cannot be sued in the forum whatever the manner of service: it is not authorized in New York (so § 1212 does not apply), did not transact business here (Insurance Law § 1213 [b] [1]), and no long-arm basis exists (CCA 404, UDCA 404, CPLR 301/302); the insured's driving into New York is not enough; the plaintiff, bearing the burden, failed to make a prima facie showing (e.g. only an attorney's affirmation without personal knowledge); jurisdictional discovery under CPLR 3211 (d) is denied because the plaintiff made no 'sufficient start' with tangible evidence; or an arbitration award is vacated because the arbitral forum lacked jurisdiction over the out-of-state insurer. - **Hearing or discovery needed**: The court finds the record does not settle the question and sends it on: a traverse hearing because the insurer's detailed affidavit (e.g. by the employee allegedly served) rebuts the process server's affidavit; a hearing or trial on whether the insurer does business in New York or is controlled by an authorized insurer; jurisdictional discovery granted because the plaintiff made a sufficient start; or an issue of fact on the insurer's amenability to the forum that defeats summary judgment. - **Objection waived/not required**: The court rejects the insurer's jurisdiction objection without deciding whether service was valid or a jurisdictional basis exists, because the insurer waived or forfeited it (not raised in the answer or a pre-answer motion, CPLR 3211 [e], 320 [b]; answer raised only improper service, waiving the lack of a jurisdictional basis; no motion within 60 days after pleading it; voluntary participation in the litigation, e.g. moving to vacate a default on the merits without raising it, Gager v White; the failure to file proof of service never raised), or because personal jurisdiction over the insurer is not required (no-fault arbitration controlled by the policy is not barred by the absence of personal jurisdiction, so a stay or vacatur on that ground is refused). ## Decisions (137) Highest court first, then department, newest first. Each entry: court and date, the category, [central] where the result turns on this question or [also decides], then a one-sentence summary written by a language model from the decision and checked by a second reading. ### Appellate Division, First Department - [Matter of Floral Park Drugs, Inc. v Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 01114)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-floral-park-drugs-inc-v-nationwide-gen-ins-co-2024-ny-slip-op-01114/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2024-02-29 — Service defective [also decides]: Held the affidavit of mail service of the petition on the insurer facially defective under CPLR 312-a because it did not state that two copies of the statement and acknowledgment of receipt were served. - [CURE (Citizens United Reciprocal Exch.) v Mian (2021 NY Slip Op 04100)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/cure-citizens-united-reciprocal-exch-v-mian-2021-ny-slip-op-04100/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2021-06-29 — Hearing or discovery needed [central]: Denied renewal of the out-of-state insurer's summary judgment motion on its lack-of-jurisdiction defense because the new evidence left an issue of fact whether it was under common control with an insurer transacting business in New York. ### Appellate Division, Second Department - [American Ind. Ins. Co. v Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. (2013 NY Slip Op 01546)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-ind-ins-co-v-art-of-healing-medicine-p-c-2013-ny-slip-op01546/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2013-03-13 — Objection waived/not required [central]: Held lack of personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state insurer was no CPLR 7503 ground to stay no-fault arbitration, because personal jurisdiction is required for judicial power, not for arbitration controlled by the policy. - [Westchester Med. Ctr. v Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 00138)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-med-ctr-v-philadelphia-indem-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op00138/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2010-01-05 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Treated service through the Superintendent under Insurance Law § 1212, who acknowledged service and notified the insurer's Pennsylvania office, as established, so the insurer's no-record affidavit did not excuse its default. - [Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 10596)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/montefiore-med-ctr-v-auto-one-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-10596/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2008-12-30 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held service by delivery to the Superintendent of Insurance under Insurance Law § 1212 was proper, the insurer did not claim its address on file was wrong, and its bare denial of receipt did not rebut the presumption. - [Hospital for Joint Diseases v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 07619)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hospital-for-joint-diseases-v-lincoln-gen-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-07619/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2008-10-07 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held service was effectuated by delivery to the Assistant Deputy Superintendent under Insurance Law § 1212, so the motion could be treated under CPLR 317. - [New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 04260)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-presbyt-hosp-v-allstate-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-04260/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006-05-30 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held service was effectuated by delivery to the Deputy Secretary of Insurance under Insurance Law § 1212, which is not personal delivery, so CPLR 317 applied. - [Matter of Hanover Ins. Co. v Cannon Express Corp. (2003 NY Slip Op 18042)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-hanover-ins-co-v-cannon-express-corp-2003-ny-slip-op-18042/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2003-11-03 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the out-of-state self-insurer respondent was subject to the court's personal jurisdiction because the unrebutted affidavit of service was prima facie proof of proper service under CPLR 311 (a) (1). ### Appellate Term, First Department - [Globe Med. Care O.L.P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50020(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/globe-med-care-o-l-p-c-v-travelers-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op50020u/) — Appellate Term, First Department, 2010-01-11 — Objection waived/not required [central]: Held dismissal at trial for failure to file proof of service was error because the insurer never raised that objection and so waived it; alternatively the omission was an irregularity correctable nunc pro tunc. ### Appellate Term, Second Department - [Midwood Metro. Med., P.C. v Permanent Gen. Assur. Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 51589(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/midwood-metro-med-p-c-v-permanent-gen-assur-corp-2026-ny-slip-op-51589u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2026-09-18 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the process server's affidavit was prima facie proof of proper CPLR 311 (a) (1) service on the insurer's registered agent, unrebutted by an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge. - [Shamayim Chiropractic, P.C. v Permanent Gen. Assur. Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 50791(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/shamayim-chiropractic-p-c-v-permanent-gen-assur-corp-2026-ny-slip-op-50791u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2026-05-15 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the process server's affidavit of delivery to the managing agent of the insurer's registered agent was prima facie proof of proper CPLR 311 (a) (1) service, unrebutted by the insurer's conclusory nonreceipt claim. - [LV Med. Diagnostic Servs., P.C. v Safe Auto Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51974(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lv-med-diagnostic-servs-p-c-v-safe-auto-ins-co-2025-ny-slip-op-51974u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2025-12-05 — Hearing or discovery needed [central]: Upheld denial of the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion because its proof was inadmissible and issues of fact existed on whether it did business in New York, leaving personal jurisdiction for trial. - [Pyramid Care, P.T., P.C. v Safe Auto Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51981(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pyramid-care-p-t-p-c-v-safe-auto-ins-co-2025-ny-slip-op-51981u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2025-12-05 — Hearing or discovery needed [central]: Upheld denial of the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion because its proof was inadmissible and issues of fact existed on whether it did business in New York, leaving personal jurisdiction for trial. - [Harvey Family Chiropractic, Physical Therapy & Acupuncture, PLLC v Liberty Lines Tr., Inc. (2024 NY Slip Op 24113)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/harvey-family-chiropractic-physical-therapy-acupuncture-pllc-v-liberty-lines-tr-inc-2024-ny-slip-op-24113/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2024-03-22 — Jurisdiction upheld [central]: Held the transit company's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion properly denied because its president's affidavit, saying only it had no office or business in Kings County, did not exclude valid Secretary of State service under Business Corporation Law § 306 (c) or CCA 404. - [Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2023 NY Slip Op 51471(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/art-of-healing-medicine-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2023-ny-slip-op-51471u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2023-12-22 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the insurer's no-record claim of nonreceipt did not rebut the process server's affidavit of delivery to an authorized employee, absent an affidavit from that employee or an explanation for its absence. - [Tam Med. Supply Corp. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50913(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/tam-med-supply-corp-v-american-ind-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op50913u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-09-09 — Service defective [central]: Held personal jurisdiction was not obtained over the insurers because the summons and complaint were served by mail under CPLR 312-a and no acknowledgment of service was shown, so the complaint was dismissed as against them. - [Shafai Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50907(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/shafai-acupuncture-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op50907u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-08-19 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held that the plaintiff's late service on the insurer, made after the 120-day period of CPLR 306-b, should have been deemed to satisfy the order directing service, since that order implicitly extended the time to serve; the complaint was then dismissed on res judicata. - [Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50901(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/island-life-chiropractic-pain-care-pllc-v-american-ind-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op50901u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-08-19 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held the Pennsylvania insurer, unlicensed and without New York offices or agents, not subject to jurisdiction because plaintiff's unsigned counsel affirmation made no prima facie showing; a related entity was dismissed for lack of service proof, while the third defendant's challenge failed. - [Lida's Med. Supply, Inc. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50578(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lidas-med-supply-inc-v-personal-serv-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op50578u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-06-10 — Service defective [central]: Held that personal jurisdiction over the insurer was never obtained because the claimed CPLR 312-a mail service lacked a signed acknowledgment of receipt, so the insurer's motion to dismiss was granted. - [Tam Med. Supply Corp. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50565(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/tam-med-supply-corp-v-american-ind-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op50565u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-06-10 — Service defective [central]: Held that the insurer defendants were never served because the claimed CPLR 312-a mail service lacked a signed acknowledgment of receipt, so their motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction were granted. - [Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50563(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/charles-deng-acupuncture-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op50563u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-06-03 — Service defective [central]: Held that personal jurisdiction over the insurer was never obtained because the claimed CPLR 312-a mail service lacked a signed acknowledgment of receipt, so the motion to dismiss was granted. - [Tam Med. Supply Corp. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50560(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/tam-med-supply-corp-v-american-ind-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op50560u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-06-03 — Service defective [central]: Held that the insurer defendants were never served because the claimed CPLR 312-a mail service lacked a signed acknowledgment of receipt, so their motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction were granted. - [A.H. Physical Therapy, P.C. v 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 21355)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-h-physical-therapy-p-c-v-21st-century-advantage-ins-co-2021-ny-slip-op-21355/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2021-12-17 — Hearing or discovery needed [central]: Held the detailed affidavit of the claims clerk allegedly served rebutted the process server's affidavit and raised an issue of fact, so the matter was remitted for a traverse hearing before deciding vacatur and dismissal. - [Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51201(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/longevity-med-supply-inc-v-american-ind-ins-co-2021-ny-slip-op51201u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2021-12-10 — Service defective [central]: Held that personal jurisdiction over the insurer was never obtained because the claimed CPLR 312-a mail service lacked a signed acknowledgment of receipt, so the branch of the motion to dismiss as to it was granted. - [Vladenn Med. Supply Corp. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 21338)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vladenn-med-supply-corp-v-american-ind-ins-co-2021-ny-slip-op-21338/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2021-12-10 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held the unlicensed Pennsylvania insurer not subject to long-arm jurisdiction because counsel's affirmation lacked personal knowledge, an arbitration-only precedent did not show court jurisdiction, and no tangible 'sufficient start' warranted jurisdictional discovery. - [Daily Med. Equip. Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50639(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/daily-med-equip-distrib-ctr-inc-v-american-ind-ins-co-2021-ny-slip-op50639u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2021-07-02 — Service defective [central]: Held personal jurisdiction over the insurer was not acquired because the CPLR 312-a mail service lacked a signed acknowledgment of receipt and no other completed service within 120 days was shown, so default judgment was denied. - [Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51120(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/right-aid-med-supply-corp-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op51120u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-09-11 — Service defective [central]: Held that personal jurisdiction over the insurer was never acquired because no signed CPLR 312-a acknowledgment of receipt was returned and service was not otherwise completed within 120 days, so dismissal was affirmed. - [Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51118(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/longevity-med-supply-inc-v-american-ind-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op51118u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-09-11 — Service defective [central]: Held that personal jurisdiction over the insurers was never acquired because no signed CPLR 312-a acknowledgment of receipt was returned and service was not otherwise completed within 120 days, so the complaint was dismissed. - [Big Apple Ortho Prods., Inc. v MTA Bus Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51112(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/big-apple-ortho-prods-inc-v-mta-bus-co-2020-ny-slip-op-51112u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-09-04 — Service defective [central]: Vacated the order adding the transit authority as defendant because the motion was mailed only one day before its return date, so improper notice deprived the court of jurisdiction and rendered the order void. - [Milky Way Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50935(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/milky-way-acupuncture-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op50935u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-08-07 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the process server's affidavits were prima facie evidence of proper CPLR 311 (a) (1) service on the insurer's authorized general agents, which the insurer's nonreceipt affidavit did not overcome. - [Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50735(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/great-health-care-chiropractic-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2020ny-slip-op-50735u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-06-12 — Service defective [central]: Held the provider never acquired personal jurisdiction because its CPLR 312-a mail service lacked a returned signed acknowledgment of receipt, so default judgment was denied and the complaint dismissed without prejudice. - [Renelique v Allstate Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50401(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/renelique-v-allstate-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op-50401u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-03-13 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the process server's affidavit alleging delivery to a general agent authorized to accept service was prima facie proof of proper CPLR 311 (a) (1) service, so the insurer had to show a reasonable excuse under CPLR 5015 (a) (1). - [Metro Health Prods., Inc. v Maryland Auto Ins. Fund (2020 NY Slip Op 50229(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/metro-health-prods-inc-v-maryland-auto-ins-fund-2020-ny-slip-op50229u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-02-14 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held the out-of-state fund, which did no business and was unlicensed in New York, not subject to jurisdiction because plaintiff's owner affidavit and counsel's affirmation showed no CCA 404 basis for its mail service. - [Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Windhaven Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50176(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/charles-deng-acupuncture-p-c-v-windhaven-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op50176u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-01-31 — Objection waived/not required [central]: Held the insurer waived any objection based on lack of a jurisdictional basis because its answer raised only improper service of the summons, so its claimed lack of New York contacts need not be considered. - [Parisien v First Acceptance Ins. Co., Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 52050(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/parisien-v-first-acceptance-ins-co-inc-2019-ny-slip-op-52050u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-12-13 — Service defective [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that mail service under CPLR 312-a did not give the court personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state insurer, so its CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion was granted. - [Domny Med. Servs., P.C. v First Acceptance Ins. Co., Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 52048(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/domny-med-servs-p-c-v-first-acceptance-ins-co-inc-2019-ny-slip-op52048u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-12-13 — Service defective [central]: Held CPLR 312-a mail service never completed because plaintiff produced no signed acknowledgment of receipt, so personal jurisdiction over the insurer was not obtained and dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a) (8) was granted. - [Parisien v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51965(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/parisien-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-51965u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-12-06 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held the Pennsylvania insurer, whose employees showed it had no New York license, offices or agents, was not subject to jurisdiction because counsel's affirmation without personal knowledge made no prima facie CCA 404 (a) showing and no sufficient start for discovery. - [Excel Prods., Inc. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51964(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/excel-prods-inc-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51964u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-12-06 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held the out-of-state insurer showed it lacked New York contacts and plaintiff's counsel's affirmation, made without personal knowledge, failed to show long-arm jurisdiction under CCA 404 (a) or a sufficient start for jurisdictional discovery. - [GC Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51954(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gc-chiropractic-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51954u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-11-29 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the process server's affidavit of delivery to an employee authorized to accept service was prima facie evidence of proper CPLR 311 (a) (1) service on the insurer. - [ZZ Acupuncture, P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51761(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/zz-acupuncture-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-51761u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. - [Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51758(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/active-care-med-supply-corp-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51758u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was properly granted. - [Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51756(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-m-d-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51756u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was properly granted. - [Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51755(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-m-d-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51755u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision decided herewith, that the insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was properly granted. - [Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51754(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-m-d-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51754u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Affirmed, for the reasons stated in a companion decision decided herewith, the dismissal of the complaint under CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction over the insurer. - [Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51753(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-m-d-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51753u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was properly granted. - [Ocean View Med. Care, P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51752(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ocean-view-med-care-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51752u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. - [Parisien v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51751(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/parisien-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-51751u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. - [Vincent Med. Servs., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51750(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vincent-med-servs-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51750u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. - [Vincent Med. Servs., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51749(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vincent-med-servs-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51749u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. - [Vincent Med. Servs., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51748(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vincent-med-servs-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51748u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision decided herewith, that the insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. - [Vincent Med. Servs., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51747(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vincent-med-servs-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51747u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. - [Performance Plus Med., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51746(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/performance-plus-med-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51746u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. - [Parisien v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51745(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/parisien-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-51745u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. - [Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51744(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/active-care-med-supply-corp-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51744u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. - [Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51743(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-m-d-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51743u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. - [Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51742(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-m-d-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51742u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. - [Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51741(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-m-d-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51741u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision decided herewith, that the insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted, reversing its denial. - [Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51740(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-m-d-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51740u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. - [Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51739(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-m-d-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51739u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, that the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. - [Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51738(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-m-d-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51738u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Granted the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion for the reasons stated in the companion decision, holding plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of a long-arm basis for jurisdiction over it. - [Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51737(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-m-d-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51737u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Reversed and granted the insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, solely for the reasons stated in a companion decision decided herewith. - [Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51736(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-m-d-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51736u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Reversed and granted the CPLR 3211 (a) (8) dismissal because the Pennsylvania insurer's employee affidavits showed no New York presence and counsel's affirmation without personal knowledge showed no CCA 404 basis; the discovery request was unpreserved and lacked a sufficient start anyway. - [Parisien v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51735(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/parisien-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-51735u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-25 — Service defective [central]: Dismissed because plaintiff served the insurer only by certified mail, with no proof of first-class mailing with acknowledgment forms or a returned signed acknowledgment under CPLR 312-a, so no personal jurisdiction was acquired. - [Nica Acupuncture, P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51696(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/nica-acupuncture-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51696u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-10-18 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Upheld dismissal and denial of jurisdictional discovery because counsel's conclusory affirmation and a parent-company officer's transcript were not tangible evidence making a sufficient start toward showing personal jurisdiction over the insurer. - [Santomauro v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51413(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/santomauro-v-allstate-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-51413u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-08-23 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the process server's affidavit of service on an authorized general agent was prima facie evidence of proper CPLR 311 (a) (1) service, which the insurer's affidavits denying receipt did not overcome. - [EMC Health Prods., Inc. v Maryland Auto. Ins. Fund (2019 NY Slip Op 51318(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/emc-health-prods-inc-v-maryland-auto-ins-fund-2019-ny-slip-op51318u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-08-09 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Maryland fund for the reasons stated in the companion decision, plaintiff having shown no CCA 404 jurisdictional basis. - [EMC Health Prods., Inc. v Maryland Auto. Ins. Fund (2019 NY Slip Op 51317(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/emc-health-prods-inc-v-maryland-auto-ins-fund-2019-ny-slip-op51317u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-08-09 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Affirmed dismissal of the complaint against the Maryland fund for lack of personal jurisdiction, for the reasons stated in a companion decision decided the same day. - [EMC Health Prods., Inc. v Maryland Auto. Ins. Fund (2019 NY Slip Op 51316(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/emc-health-prods-inc-v-maryland-auto-ins-fund-2019-ny-slip-op51316u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-08-09 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Affirmed dismissal because, after the fund showed it did no business and was not licensed in New York, plaintiff offered only counsel's affirmation without personal knowledge and no evidence of a CCA 404 jurisdictional basis. - [Pierre J. Renelique Physician, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 29225)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-physician-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-29225/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-07-19 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the process server's affidavit of service on the insurer's authorized general agent was prima facie proof of proper service under CPLR 311(a)(1), which a no-record affidavit without specific facts did not rebut. - [Jamaica Dedicated Med. Care, P.C. v USAA Cas. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51172(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/jamaica-dedicated-med-care-p-c-v-usaa-cas-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51172u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-07-12 — Service defective [central]: Affirmed dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a) (8) and denial of a CPLR 306-b extension, for the reasons stated in the companion decision, where the provider served the insurer after the 120-day period had run. - [Jamaica Dedicated Med. Care, P.C. v USAA Cas. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51171(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/jamaica-dedicated-med-care-p-c-v-usaa-cas-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51171u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-07-12 — Service defective [central]: Affirmed dismissal because service came 47 days after the CPLR 306-b period; law office failure was not good cause, and the long-delayed cross motion, expired limitations period and no showing of merit defeated an interest-of-justice extension. - [Masigla v Windhaven Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51169(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/masigla-v-windhaven-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-51169u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-07-12 — Objection waived/not required [central]: Rejected the insurer's lack-of-contacts objection because its answer raised only improper service, not a lack of jurisdictional basis, so under CPLR 3211 (e) it waived all personal jurisdiction defenses except service itself. - [Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50923(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/active-care-med-supply-corp-v-kemper-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op50923u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-06-07 — Service defective [central]: Held personal jurisdiction was never acquired because the record showed no signed acknowledgment of receipt for the CPLR 312-a mail service and no other method was tried, so the action was dismissed without prejudice. - [Pravel, Inc. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50644(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pravel-inc-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-50644u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-04-26 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Granted the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion for the reasons stated in Pavlova, plaintiff having failed to show a long-arm basis for personal jurisdiction over it. - [Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50643(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-m-d-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op50643u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-04-26 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Reversed and granted the insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, for the reasons stated in Pavlova and citing Basedow and Gutierrez-Guzman. - [JCC Med., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50642(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/jcc-med-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-50642u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-04-26 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Granted the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion for the reasons stated in Pavlova, plaintiff having failed to show a long-arm basis for personal jurisdiction over it. - [GL Acupuncture, P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50640(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gl-acupuncture-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op50640u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-04-26 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Granted the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion for the reasons stated in Pavlova, plaintiff having failed to show a long-arm basis for personal jurisdiction over it. - [Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50639(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gentlecare-ambulatory-anesthesia-servs-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op50639u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-04-26 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Granted the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion for the reasons stated in Pavlova, plaintiff having failed to show a long-arm basis for personal jurisdiction over it. - [Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50638(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pierre-j-renelique-m-d-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op50638u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-04-26 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Reversed and granted the insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, for the reasons stated in a prior Appellate Term decision against the same insurer. - [Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50637(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gentlecare-ambulatory-anesthesia-servs-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op50637u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-04-26 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Granted the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion for the reasons stated in Pavlova, plaintiff having failed to show a long-arm basis for personal jurisdiction over it. - [Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50636(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gentlecare-ambulatory-anesthesia-servs-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op50636u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-04-26 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Reversed and granted the insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, for the reasons stated in an earlier Appellate Term decision against the same insurer. - [Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50635(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gentlecare-ambulatory-anesthesia-servs-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op50635u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-04-26 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Reversed the denial and granted the insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, for the reasons stated in a companion decision holding the plaintiff showed no jurisdictional basis over the out-of-state insurer. - [Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50634(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gentlecare-ambulatory-anesthesia-servs-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op50634u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-04-26 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Granted the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion for the reasons stated in Pavlova, plaintiff having failed to show a long-arm basis for personal jurisdiction over it. - [Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50633(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gentlecare-ambulatory-anesthesia-servs-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op50633u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-04-26 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Reversed and granted the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion for lack of personal jurisdiction, for the reasons stated in a prior Appellate Term decision against the same insurer finding no long-arm basis shown. - [Performance Plus Med., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50632(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/performance-plus-med-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op50632u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-04-26 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Reversed and granted the insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over it, for the reasons stated in an earlier Appellate Term decision involving the same insurer. - [Lida's Med. Supply, Inc. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50502(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lidas-med-supply-inc-v-american-ind-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op50502u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-03-29 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Granted the out-of-state insurer's CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion for the reasons stated in Pavlova, plaintiff having failed to show a long-arm basis for personal jurisdiction over it. - [Aminov v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50056(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/aminov-v-allstate-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-50056u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-01-04 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the process server's affidavit describing service on an employee authorized to accept it at the insurer's office was prima facie proof under CPLR 311(a)(1), unrebutted by a claim representative's conclusory denial, so CPLR 5015(a)(4) vacatur was denied. - [Pavlova v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50943(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pavlova-v-american-ind-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op-50943u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-06-15 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held the out-of-state insurer's employee affidavits showed prima facie lack of personal jurisdiction, and the provider's counsel's affirmation, made without personal knowledge, failed to show a long-arm basis under CCA 404 (a), so dismissal was granted. - [Pain Mgt. Ctr. of N.J., P.C. v All Car Rent-A-Car (2017 NY Slip Op 51310(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pain-mgt-ctr-of-n-j-p-c-v-all-car-rent-a-car-2017-ny-slip-op-51310u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-09-29 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Upheld service on the rental company's manager who said she was authorized to accept process, because the general manager's affidavit lacked personal knowledge and no affidavit from her denied the representation. - [S & R Med., P.C. v Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50551(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/s-r-med-p-c-v-allstate-prop-cas-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op50551u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-04-11 — Service defective [central]: Held the provider failed to show valid service because the insurer was served in Suffolk County, outside the City, contrary to CCA 403, and no facts supported extraterritorial service under CCA 404, so default judgment was denied. - [Flushing Traditional Acupuncture, P.C. v Auto Club Ins. Assn., AAA Mich. (2016 NY Slip Op 26125)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/flushing-traditional-acupuncture-p-c-v-auto-club-ins-assn-aaa-mich-2016-ny-slip-op-26125/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2016-04-11 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held service on the Superintendent of Insurance under Insurance Law § 1212 acquired jurisdiction over the Michigan insurer because its New York certificate of authority showed it was authorized here and the cause of action arose in New York. - [Richard A. Hellander, M.D., P.C. v Metlife Auto & Home Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 25164)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/richard-a-hellander-m-d-p-c-v-metlife-auto-home-ins-co-2015-ny-slip-op-25164/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2015-05-05 — Service defective [central]: Held CPLR 312-a mail service never completed because the insurer never signed and returned the acknowledgment and no other method was tried; the answer preserving the defense was no appearance, nothing was waived, and the 2010 filing was never served. - [Compas Med., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50481(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/compas-med-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2015-ny-slip-op50481u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2015-03-26 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania insurer; the jurisdictional-discovery argument was unpreserved and, in any event, the unverified complaint and counsel's conclusory affirmation made no 'sufficient start' warranting discovery under CPLR 3211 (d). - [Dyckman Med. Diagnostic/Treatment, P.C. v Granite State Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51026(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/dyckman-med-diagnostic-treatment-p-c-v-granite-state-ins-co-2014-nyslip-op-51026u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2014-07-01 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the process server's affidavit was prima facie proof of 2003 service on the insurer and a conclusory denial of receipt by a claims administrator's employee did not rebut it, so the action was timely commenced. - [Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v Auto Club Ins. Assn., AAA Mich. (2014 NY Slip Op 50619(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/flatbush-chiropractic-p-c-v-auto-club-ins-assn-aaa-mich-2014-ny-slipop-50619u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2014-03-31 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held the Michigan insurer showed it did none of the acts enumerated in CCA 404 within New York City, and the provider failed to carry its burden of proving jurisdiction, so dismissal was affirmed on that ground. - [Metro Health Prods., Inc. v Access Gen. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50348(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/metro-health-prods-inc-v-access-gen-ins-co-2014-ny-slip-op50348u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2014-02-28 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held the Georgia insurer showed it did none of the CCA 404 acts in New York City, and the provider's counsel's conclusory claim of a possible New York agent did not justify discovery under CPLR 3211 (d). - [Flatlands Med., P.C. v AAA Ins. (2014 NY Slip Op 24048)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/flatlands-med-p-c-v-aaa-ins-2014-ny-slip-op-24048/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2014-02-14 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held the unauthorized out-of-state insurer, which wrote no business in New York, could not be reached under Insurance Law §§ 1212 or 1213 or CCA 404, since the insured's driving into New York was insufficient and plaintiff offered no evidentiary facts. - [J.C. Healing Touch Rehab, P.C. v Access Gen. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 52086(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/j-c-healing-touch-rehab-p-c-v-access-gen-ins-co-2013-ny-slip-op52086u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2013-12-12 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held the Georgia insurer showed prima facie that none of the CCA 404 (a) acts occurred in New York City, and counsel's affirmation without personal knowledge neither established jurisdiction nor entitled plaintiff to jurisdictional discovery. - [Central Radiology Servs., P.C. v First Am. Ins. (2013 NY Slip Op 51031(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/central-radiology-servs-p-c-v-first-am-ins-2013-ny-slip-op51031u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2013-06-17 — Objection waived/not required [central]: Held the insurer submitted to jurisdiction by first moving to vacate its default and defend on the merits, so its later improper-service (TPA served) motion to dismiss failed. - [New York Med. Rehab., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 23218)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-med-rehab-p-c-v-travelers-ins-co-2013-ny-slip-op-23218/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2013-06-17 — Service defective [also decides]: Held 2004 CPLR 312-a mail service was never completed without a signed acknowledgment, so no action was commenced and the preserving answer waived nothing; the action was commenced only by the 2009 filing, after the six-year limitations period expired. - [Richmond Pain Mgt., P.C. v Aetna/Travelers Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50900(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/richmond-pain-mgt-p-c-v-aetna-travelers-ins-co-2013-ny-slip-op50900u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2013-05-22 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the late filing of the summons with the insurer's signed CPLR 312-a acknowledgment was given nunc pro tunc effect under CCA former 411, so the action was commenced by 2003 service and was timely. - [Omni Med. Servs., P.C. v Arch Ins. (2011 NY Slip Op 51411(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/omni-med-servs-p-c-v-arch-ins-2011-ny-slip-op-51411u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2011-07-25 — Service defective [central]: Held service was invalid because process was delivered to a clerk of the insurer's third-party claims administrator with no showing he was authorized under CPLR 311(a)(1), so the default judgment was vacated and the complaint dismissed. - [St. Dominick Med. Servs., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50609(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/st-dominick-med-servs-p-c-v-progressive-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op50609u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2011-04-05 — Service defective [central]: Held no personal jurisdiction was acquired because the insurer never signed and returned the CPLR 312-a acknowledgment of receipt and the provider did not serve it another way, so dismissal was granted. - [Gateway Med., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50336(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gateway-med-p-c-v-progressive-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op-50336u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2011-03-02 — Service defective [central]: Held CPLR 312-a service was defective because the insurer never signed and returned the acknowledgment and the provider did not effect service in another manner, so the motion to dismiss should have been granted. - [RAZ Acupuncture, P.C. v United Auto. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52152(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/raz-acupuncture-p-c-v-united-auto-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op52152u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-12-08 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held the complaint properly dismissed because the Florida insurer's affidavit showed it was unauthorized and transacted no New York business, and plaintiff, bearing the burden, showed no basis for long-arm jurisdiction or need for discovery. - [Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v United Auto. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52151(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/viviane-etienne-med-care-p-c-v-united-auto-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op52151u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-12-08 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held the complaint properly dismissed because the Florida insurer's affidavit showed it was unauthorized and transacted no New York business, and plaintiff, bearing the burden, showed no basis for long-arm jurisdiction or need for discovery. - [Axis Chiropractic, PLLC v United Auto. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52150(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/axis-chiropractic-pllc-v-united-auto-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op52150u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-12-08 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held the complaint properly dismissed because the Florida insurer's affidavit showed it was unauthorized and transacted no New York business, and plaintiff, bearing the burden, showed no basis for long-arm jurisdiction or need for discovery. - [Stoessel v Allstate Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51244(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/stoessel-v-allstate-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-51244u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-07-16 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the clerk's mailing of the commercial claims notice under CCA 1803-A, not returned as undeliverable, created a presumption of receipt that the insurer's conclusory denial of service did not rebut. - [Nursing Personnel Homecare v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50450(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/nursing-personnel-homecare-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op50450u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-03-10 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the affidavit of service established service on the insurer by delivery to the Superintendent of Insurance under Insurance Law § 1212, before granting CPLR 317 relief for lack of actual notice. - [Focus Radiology, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51218(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/focus-radiology-p-c-v-new-york-cent-mut-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op51218u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009-06-12 — Jurisdiction upheld [central]: Held dismissal for failure to file the summons with proof of service within 14 days under former CCA 409 unwarranted because plaintiff requested nunc pro tunc relief, which should have been granted under former CCA 411. - [J.R. Dugo, D.C., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 29261)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/j-r-dugo-d-c-p-c-v-new-york-cent-mut-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-29261/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009-06-12 — Jurisdiction upheld [central]: Held dismissal for failure to file the summons with proof of service within 14 days under former CCA 409 unwarranted because plaintiff requested nunc pro tunc relief, which should have been granted under former CCA 411. - [Boai Zhong Yo Acupuncture Servs., P.C. v Dollar Rent A Car (2007 NY Slip Op 51971(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/boai-zhong-yo-acupuncture-servs-p-c-v-dollar-rent-a-car-2007-ny-slip-op-51971u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2007-10-02 — Service defective [central]: Held execution of the judgment against the nonparty rental company properly stayed because plaintiff did not show that it did business as the named defendant and was properly served, though plaintiff could seek leave to amend. - [R.J. Professional Acupuncturist, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50368(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/r-j-professional-acupuncturist-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50368u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2007-02-26 — Service defective [central]: Affirmed dismissal of the provider's petition to vacate because the notice of petition was served on the insurer's attorney by regular mail rather than in the manner of a summons under CPLR 403 (c). - [Nyack Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52233(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/nyack-hosp-v-allstate-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-52233u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-10-27 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the provider established service on the Superintendent of Insurance under Insurance Law § 1212, and the insurer's mere denial of receipt did not rebut the presumption of proper service. - [Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50210(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ocean-diagnostic-imaging-p-c-v-lumbermens-mut-cas-co-2005-ny-slip-op-50210u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-02-18 — Service defective [central]: Held service at an office used by Kemper Casualty failed to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant insurer because there was no showing Kemper was the same legal entity, so the default judgment was properly denied. - [NYC Med. & Neurodiagnostic, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 24526)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/nyc-med-neurodiagnostic-p-c-v-republic-w-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-24526/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2004-12-22 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held the complaint must be dismissed because the plaintiff, having abandoned reliance on the insurer's authorized status, offered only conclusory allegations that the out-of-state insurer transacted business in the city, not the sufficient start needed for jurisdictional discovery. - [Amaze Med. Supply, Inc. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 51110(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/amaze-med-supply-inc-v-lumbermens-mut-cas-co-2004-ny-slip-op-51110u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2004-10-01 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the record established jurisdiction was acquired by service on the Superintendent of Insurance under Insurance Law § 1212, so the insurer had to show a reasonable excuse and meritorious defense. ### Trial courts in the First Department - [Chubb Ins. Co. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51985(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/chubb-ins-co-v-geico-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-51985u/) — Supreme Court, New York County, 2008-09-29 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Held the insurer validly served under Insurance Law § 1212 by delivery to the Superintendent's designee, with acknowledgment and forwarding, and its unsupported claim that its files showed no service did not controvert the affidavit. - [American Ind. Ins. v Heights Chiropractic Care, P.C. (2006 NY Slip Op 26096)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-ind-ins-v-heights-chiropractic-care-p-c-2006-ny-slip-op-26096/) — Supreme Court, New York County, 2006-01-17 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Held the unlicensed Pennsylvania insurer not subject to New York jurisdiction or no-fault arbitration because partial payment of bills was not systematic business under the long-arm statute and Insurance Law § 1213 did not benefit an assignee provider. - [American Ind. Ins. v Gerard Ave. Med. P.C. (2005 NY Slip Op 52302(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-ind-ins-v-gerard-ave-med-p-c-2005-ny-slip-op-52302u/) — Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2005-12-31 — Objection waived/not required [central]: Held that the court's possible lack of personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state insurer was not the question; the arbitrator's power depended on whether the policy was subject to New York's no-fault arbitration, which the record did not show. ### Trial courts in the Second Department - [Dakiroks Prods., Corp v United Auto. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 51811(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/dakiroks-prods-corp-v-united-auto-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-51811u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2026-09-23 — Service defective [central]: Held the action dismissed without prejudice because the affidavit of service under VTL § 253 was facially void as to a no-fault insurer and later service was attempted beyond 120 days without leave under CPLR 306-b. - [Delacruz-Gomez v New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50999(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/delacruz-gomez-v-new-jersey-mfrs-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-50999u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2026-06-26 — Service defective [central]: Held service under VTL 253 void on its face because the nonresident insurer was neither an owner nor operator, so personal jurisdiction was never obtained; rejected the argument that the rejected answer waived the defense. - [Healthwise Med. Assoc., P.C. v Safe Auto Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50986(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/healthwise-med-assoc-p-c-v-safe-auto-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-50986u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2026-03-05 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Dismissed because the unauthorized out-of-state insurer, whose policy was issued in Pennsylvania, showed it transacted no business in New York, and the provider's speculation about policy language made no sufficient start toward long-arm jurisdiction; the service challenge was rejected. - [ENS Med., P.C. v Nationwide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 26033)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ens-med-p-c-v-nationwide-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-26033/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2026-02-13 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's objection to defective CPLR 312-a service, deeming the commencement papers properly and timely served nunc pro tunc because the insurer did not refute its agent's acceptance of mail service and suffered no prejudice. - [Pedro Torres-Jimenez MD, P.C. v American Access Cas. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 50358(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pedro-torres-jimenez-md-p-c-v-american-access-cas-co-2025-ny-slip-op-50358u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2025-03-13 — Service defective [central]: Held service on the Illinois insurer under VTL 253 void on its face because the statute reaches only nonresident owners or operators, so the court lacked personal jurisdiction, denied the default judgment and dismissed without prejudice. - [Pak Hong Sik MD Med. Care, P.C. v Omni Ins. Co. (2023 NY Slip Op 50431(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pak-hong-sik-md-med-care-p-c-v-omni-ins-co-2023-ny-slip-op50431u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, 2023-05-10 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Denied the out-of-state insurer's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as a barred successive pre-answer motion and, alternatively, because its stale affidavit and inadmissible website printout failed to show it transacted no New York business. - [Action Potiential Chiropractic, PC v Grange Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51306(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/action-potiential-chiropractic-pc-v-grange-mut-cas-ins-co-2021-ny-slip-op51306u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2021-06-29 — Service defective [also decides]: Denied leave to substitute a new insurer under CPLR 305 (c) because nothing showed that the original or the intended insurer had been served, so the court lacked jurisdiction over it; the time-barred claim also failed to relate back. - [Orman v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52205(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/orman-v-geico-gen-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op-52205u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2012-11-30 — Jurisdiction upheld [also decides]: Struck the insurer's personal-jurisdiction defense because the proof of service, fee receipt and Insurance Department acknowledgment showed service under Insurance Law § 1212, and the insurer did not oppose. - [John M. Horvath, D.C., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 29093)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/john-m-horvath-d-c-p-c-v-progressive-cas-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-29093/) — District Court of Nassau County, First District, 2009-02-17 — Jurisdiction upheld [central]: Denied the insurer's motion to dismiss for commencement defects because serving process by regular rather than certified mail and not buying a new index number were nonprejudicial irregularities disregarded under amended CPLR 2001. - [Eagle Ins. Co. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 52116(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/eagle-ins-co-v-republic-w-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-52116u/) — Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2008-10-24 — Service defective [central]: Dismissed the petition to confirm for lack of personal jurisdiction because the respondent insurer and its attorney were served only by regular mail, not as a summons; obtaining an adjournment did not waive the objection. - [Mills v Government Employees Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 52141(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/mills-v-government-employees-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-52141u/) — Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2008-10-01 — Service defective [also decides]: Held the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the insurer because the notice of petition and petition were mailed to its counsel instead of being served like a summons under CPLR 403 (c) and 311 (a). - [Advanced Med. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50945(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/advanced-med-v-progressive-cas-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-50945u/) — District Court of Nassau County, First District, 2005-06-24 — No jurisdiction over insurer [central]: Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because the insurer, served outside the county through the Superintendent, was a nonresident of the county and the plaintiff failed to show it transacted business there or that the claim arose there. - [Queens Community Med. Ctrs. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50544(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/queens-community-med-ctrs-v-eveready-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-50544u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2005-04-14 — Service defective [central]: Dismissed the petition to vacate for lack of personal jurisdiction because the notice of petition was mailed by regular mail to an attorney not authorized to accept service, not served like a summons under CPLR 403 (c), and late re-service was refused. - [N.Y.C. Med. & Neurodiagnostic v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 24115)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/n-y-c-med-neurodiagnostic-v-republic-w-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-24115/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, 2004-04-12 — Jurisdiction upheld [central]: On reargument, adhered to denying the insurer's lack-of-jurisdiction motion, holding the insurer was authorized to do insurance business in New York per Insurance Department records and transacted business in the city by insuring its sibling's rental vehicles. - [Tauz v Allstate Ins. Co. (2003 NY Slip Op 23915)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/tauz-v-allstate-ins-co-2003-ny-slip-op-23915/) — District Court of Nassau County, First District, 2003-12-12 — Service defective [central]: Held service on the insurer in Suffolk County was ineffective under UDCA 403 because it had Nassau County offices where it could be personally served, and no UDCA 404 basis was shown, so the action was dismissed without prejudice. ### Trial courts in the Fourth Department - [Buffalo Gen. Hosp. v Erie Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 29438)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/buffalo-gen-hosp-v-erie-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-29438/) — County Court, Erie County, 2009-09-24 — Jurisdiction upheld [central]: Held service of Buffalo City Court process on the Superintendent of Insurance in Albany valid under Insurance Law § 1212, because authorized insurers consented to such service by filing a power of attorney, overriding constitutional territorial limits. - [Daniel C. Cox, D.C., P.C. v State Farm Gen. Ins. (2009 NY Slip Op 29066)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/daniel-c-cox-d-c-p-c-v-state-farm-gen-ins-2009-ny-slip-op-29066/) — City Court of Buffalo, 2009-01-21 — Jurisdiction upheld [central]: Held that service on the Superintendent of Insurance in Albany or New York City under Insurance Law § 1212 gave the Buffalo City Court personal jurisdiction, because licensed insurers had consented to such service despite the constitutional territorial limits.