Source: http://jtnylaw.com/category/statute-of-limitations/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 21:15:02+00:00

Document:
Is it three years or 6 years?
4-3 holding. For self insured entities, the statute of limitations is 3 years.
I would like to read a bit into Judge Stein’s concurrence. It appears that the next time this issue comes up, it may be a 3 year SOL across the board. I think the people that really get hurt the most here are EIP’s with non-assigned claims that wait for their PI cases to resolve before addressing no-fault lien or wage issues.
Statute of Limitations – three versus six?
Apparently, an entity that has NO stake in this battle, American Transit Ins. Co., felt the need to file an Amicus on this issue. Should make for some light an highly relevant reading.
Assuming the Court reverses and finds that lawsuits against governmental entities is guided by a three year statute of limitation, ATIC will clearly benefit from a favorable ruling. Logical right? Oh Brooklyn Bridge, for how much do I sell thee?
SOL on self-insured’s going up to the Court of Appeals.
“ORDERED that the motion is granted, and the following question is certified to the Court of Appeals: Was the decision and order of this Court dated January 20, 2016, which determined that an action to recover first-party no-fault benefits from a party which is self-insured is subject to a six-year statute of limitations, properly made?
So much went wrong for Granite State. As some might say, they could not get out of their own way on this one.
By the way, if this was an endorsed complaint, would the pleader be non-suited without the movant providing evidence that the bills themselves were “received” and that thirty days elapsed?
EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51720(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011).
In the no-fault context, a cause of action accrues when payment of no-fault benefits becomes “overdue” (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; see also Benson v Boston Old Colony Ins. Co., 134 AD2d 214 ; New Era Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC, 18 Misc 3d 139[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50353[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). In this case, benefits became overdue 30 days after defendant’s receipt of proof of the claim (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; former Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65.15 [g], now Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8; Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Nelson, 67 NY2d 169, 175 ). The complaint alleges that a claim form in the amount of $1,707.97 was submitted to defendant on June 6, 2001. In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint as barred by the statute of limitations, the court must take the factual allegations of the complaint as true, and [*2]must resolve all inferences in favor of the plaintiff (see Island ADC, Inc., 49 AD3d 815). We note that defendant’s dismissal motion was based upon an allegation that defendant had received a bill for $1,467.95 on April 3, 2001, and that this bill, along with a bill for $240.02, are the bills which are the subject of this action. However, defendant failed to demonstrate that these two bills, one of which it claims to have received on April 3, 2001, are the subject of this action, where the complaint alleges that one bill for $1,707.97 was submitted on June 6, 2001.
Defendant should have (1) moved for summary judgment; (2) provided an affidavit explaining when each bill was received; and (3) provided a copy of each bill.
CPLR 3211(a)(5) + bills that do not add up to the amount in dispute = disaster.
“There are, therefore, two methods to compute the accrual date in the case at bar: the first is measured, in part, from the last date on which written notice of the accident must be given to the insurer, and the second is measured, in part, from the date the services were rendered. Since the accident occurred on or about October 23, 2000, and the action was commenced on August 29, 2007, it is clear that plaintiff does not benefit by using the first computation method.
2) How can you present a stamped bill in your moving papers without incorporating a pro forma affidavit stating that the bill was received on the date stamped on the bill? Unreal.
3) This is more proof that the current method of resolving motions in the Civil Courts, i.e., through “oral argument” without reading the papers is a complete failure. OCA is aware of this, but has refused to do anything about it.
It is well settled that “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” (Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Nelson, 67 NY2d 169, 175 ). 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.
Compare – Elrac v. Suero, 38 A.D.3d 544 (2d Dept. 2007) and Spring World Acupuncture, P.C. v. NYC Transit Authority 24 Misc.3d 39 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2009).
For the record, I believe all no-fault actions should be judged by the 3-year SOL. How do you cite Aetna and then limit its holding to self insured carriers? This decision is schizophrenic.
This would have made more sense. Now another Pandora’s box has opened. Does this apply to ELRAC and other self insureds? Is the COA now going to weigh in on this issue?

References: § 5106
 § 5106
 § 65
 § 65
 v. 
 v.