From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Presbyterian Hospital v. Atlanta Casualty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 5, 1994
210 A.D.2d 210 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Summary

recognizing cases in which late denial of claim did not bar insurer's defense because "the claimant, the vehicle, or the subject event was facially outside of the four corners of the insurance contract"

Summary of this case from N. Jersey Brain & Spine Ctr. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

Opinion

December 5, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment is denied, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in the principal sum of $7,786.21 plus interest from August 27, 1992, the date when the defendant notified the plaintiff Joseph Henig, P.C. that it was purportedly disclaiming coverage.

Dawn Martinez sought treatment for headaches and dizziness following an automobile accident on March 8, 1991, in which she had sustained, inter alia, a concussion. At the time of the accident, Martinez and her vehicle were concededly covered by the defendant's no-fault insurance policy. Diagnostic imaging revealed a brain lesion that could have been either an acute brain injury (i.e., a contusion), or a tumor. When the intracranial "mass did not resolve", surgery was performed and a "low grade glioma" or "astrocytoma" was found and excised.

With a cover letter dated July 2, 1992, the plaintiff Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, by its attorney and coplaintiff Joseph Henig, P.C., mailed a Hospital Facility Form (NYS Form N-F-5) and a NYS Form UBF-1 to the defendant Atlanta Casualty Company (hereinafter Atlanta Casualty) for payment of its hospital bill in the principal sum of $7,786.21. The admitting diagnosis of a suspected brain tumor was clearly entered on the form. The only reply the plaintiffs received was an unsigned letter from Atlanta Casualty's claims representative, dated July 20, 1992, informing the Hospital that Atlanta Casualty was in the process of obtaining an independent review of Martinez' bills in order to determine whether all of the medical charges related to her accident. At no point did Atlanta Casualty issue a formal Denial of Claim to the plaintiffs, although on August 27, 1992, it sent another unsigned letter to Joseph Henig, P.C., refusing to pay for any treatments or procedures relating to the insured's brain tumor on the ground that such a condition did not arise from her motor vehicle accident.

According to the statutory scheme governing payment of nofault benefits, "[w]ithin 30 calendar days after proof of claim is received, the insurer shall either pay or deny the claim in whole or in part" (11 NYCRR 65.15 [g] [3]; emphasis supplied). Appended to 11 NYCRR 65.15 is an assortment of "prescribed * * * forms that must be used by all insurers, and shall not be altered" (11 NYCRR 65.15 [c] [3]; emphasis supplied). Among these is "(x) Denial of Claim Form (NYS Form N-F 10)". This form provides for the insurer to deny a claim on the ground, inter alia, that the "[i]njuries did not arise out of use or operation of a motor vehicle", and/or because the "[t]reatment [is] not related to [the] accident" (11 N.Y.CRR Appendix 13-A, N-F 10 [7], [20]). It would therefore appear from the N-F 10 form itself that the usual 30-day limit is applicable to an insurer's denial of a claim based upon its assessment that the injured person's condition and/or treatment is unrelated to his/her automobile accident.

In denying a claim, further extensions are permitted if the insurer serves demands for "verification" — which did not happen here (11 NYCRR 65.15 [d] [1], [2], [3]). A "letter" of disclaimer is permissible, provided that it is approved by the New York State Department of Insurance, issued in duplicate, and "contains substantially the same information as the prescribed form which is relevant to the claim denied" (11 NYCRR 65.15 [g] [3] [i]; emphasis supplied). No such letter was ever sent by the insurer in this case, where the only correspondence received by the plaintiffs was an unsigned letter purporting to reserve Atlanta Casualty's right to disclaim at some future, unspecified date (see, Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau, 46 N.Y.2d 1028; Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Conklin, 123 A.D.2d 6).

The No-Fault Law is in derogation of the common law and so must be strictly construed (Bennett v State Farm Ins. Co., 147 A.D.2d 779, 781; Maxwell v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 92 A.D.2d 1049, 1050). Where, as here, a carrier has failed to comply with the foregoing statutory schedule, "preclusion of the insurance company's ability to deny the claim is the appropriate remedy" (Loudermilk v Allstate Ins. Co., 178 A.D.2d 897, 898; Bennett v State Farm Ins. Co., supra).

This is not a case like those relied upon by the defendant where the claimant, the vehicle, or the subject event was facially outside of the four corners of the insurance contract (cf., Zappone v Home Ins. Co., 55 N.Y.2d 131, 134; Schiff Assocs. v Flack, 51 N.Y.2d 692; Employers Ins. v County of Nassau, 141 A.D.2d 496). The evidence reveals that Martinez' brain lesion was either the result of a contusion suffered in the accident, or a brain tumor. Under the terms of her no-fault insurance policy the medical treatment of her symptoms was covered, either on the theory that the lesion which caused them was sustained in the accident or was a preexisting condition which was aggravated by the accident (11 NYCRR 65.15 [m] [1]). Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Freidmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Presbyterian Hospital v. Atlanta Casualty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 5, 1994
210 A.D.2d 210 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

recognizing cases in which late denial of claim did not bar insurer's defense because "the claimant, the vehicle, or the subject event was facially outside of the four corners of the insurance contract"

Summary of this case from N. Jersey Brain & Spine Ctr. v. Hereford Ins. Co.
Case details for

Presbyterian Hospital v. Atlanta Casualty

Case Details

Full title:PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, as Assignee of DAWN M…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 5, 1994

Citations

210 A.D.2d 210 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
619 N.Y.S.2d 337

Citing Cases

Sabodash v. Hereford Ins. Co.

( 11 NYCRR 65-2.4 [c] ). Because the No-Fault Law is a derogation of common law, it must be strictly…

Tian Shan Acupuncture PC v. Glob. Liberty Ins. Co.

( 11 NYCRR 65-2.4 [c] ). Because the No-Fault Law is a derogation of common law, it must be strictly…