Statute of Limitations and Severance of Claims

In this No-Fault Insurance Wrap-Up, David M. Barshay explains the statute of limitations for an action to recover no-fault insurance benefits against a self-insured. He also looks at motions to sever purportedly unrelated claims.

June 13, 2018 at 02:45 PM

4 minute read

By David M. Barshay

The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal

Statute of Limitations Mandarino v. Travelers Property Casualty Ins. Co. Mandarino

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 ….

Shtarkman v. MVAIC Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. M.N. Dental Diagnostics v. New York City Transit Authority ^st

Since it is undisputed that there existed no contract between plaintiff's assignor and the NYCTA, 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.

Contact Chiropractic v New York City Transit Authority Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. v. Evans (95 A.D.2d 470 [2d Dept. 1983]) Contact Chiropractic v. New York City Transit Authority

The no-fault benefits in dispute are not provided by a contract with a private insurer. Instead defendant has met its statutory obligation by self-insuring. No-fault is a creature of statute (see Aetna Life Ins. Co. v Nelson, 67 NY2d 169, 175 [1986] ["the No-Fault law does not codify common-law principles; it creates new and independent statutory rights and obligations in order to provide a more efficient means for adjusting financial responsibilities arising out of automobile accidents"]). Our holding in Aetna Life Ins. Co. is directly applicable here. As we stated in that case, "first-party benefits are a form of compensation unknown at common law, resting on predicates independent of the fault or negligence of the injured party" (id. at 175). In the absence of private law requiring defendant to pay first-party benefits (that is, in the absence of a contract for insurance), the only requirement that defendant provide such remuneration to the assignee as a result of the accident appears in relevant parts of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and the Insurance Law. Consequently, the source of this claim is wholly statutory, meaning that the three-year period of limitations in CPLR 214 (2) should control this case.