 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stracar Medical Services12/7/2005
e three-year Statute of Limitations for personal injury actions."
The seminal case in determining the correct Statute of Limitations period for suits against MVAIC is Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation v. Aetna casualty & Surety Company, 89 NY2d 214, 652 NYS2d 584 (1996). In reaching its ultimate conclusion, the Court of Appeals stated that MVAIC's obligation to pay no-fault benefits to an injured party where the accident vehicle's insurer denies such coverage is purely statutory under the no-fault scheme. MVAIC itself is a statutory creation ... and the rights conferred upon it under articels 51 and 52 of the Insurance Law... arise only by statutory enactment or departmental regulations.... Hence, the three-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214 ) applies.
In Vasquez v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, 272 AD2d 275, 708 NYS2d 99 (1st Dept. 2000), the court alluded to the three-year Statute of Limitations for filing claims against MVAIC when it stated that the plaintiff sought leave to sue MVAIC, as required by the Insurance Law, six days before the expiration of the three-year Statute of Limitations [emphasis added].
Most recently, the court in In Line Chiropractic, P.C. aao Demond Webb v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, 2005 NY Slip Op. 50275U, 800 NYS2d 345 (Bronx County 2005), stated that there is no dispute that the three-year Statute of Limitations is applicable to the situation in which MVAIC is sued for first-party benefits under the No-Fault law.
Based on the foregoing, this court holds that the appropriate Statute of Limitations for bringing actions against MVAIC is three years, pursuant to the provisions of CPLR 214. Therefore, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is hereby deemed moot.
This constitutes the decision and the order of the court.
|