The statute of limitations for a subrogation action by an insurer
starts from the date of the accident, not the date when the first of the
affected benefits were paid, the New York Court of Appeals ruled.
The case before the state's highest court, Allstate Insurance
Co. v. Daniel J. Stein (No. 16), arose after a May 1995 crash in which
the car Stein was driving hit a car Amy Walker was driving, seriously
injuring her.
Walker had first-party coverage from Allstate, as called for under
New York's no-fault law. She also had bought Additional Personal
Injury Protection coverage covering "extended economic loss"
beyond that covered under the mandatory no-fault coverage.
In August 1996, however, Walker sued Stein alleging she had
sustained serious enough injury to exceed the state's no-fault
threshold.
By June 1998, after paying the basic no-fault benefits, Allstate
began paying APIP benefits, eventually amounting to more than $42,000.
Walker and Stein settled her lawsuit, but Allstate didn't
agree and in May 2001 filed a subrogation action against Stein.
Stein argued that a subrogation action, in which the insurer stands
in the shoes of a policyholder to whom it has paid benefits, is governed
by the same statute of limitations that would apply to Walker - that is,
requiring the action to be filed within three years of May 1995.
Allstate argued that the clock began to tick when it began paying
the APIP benefits in 1998.
The company argued it was not asserting an ordinary subrogation
right but one created by Insurance Department regulations.
It cited a 1996 Court of Appeals decision in Motor Vehicle Accident
Indemnity Corp. v. Aetna Casualty Insurance Co., involving no-fault
benefits MVAIC had paid after the vehicle's insurer denied
coverage. It said MVAIC's right to reimbursement was "created
or imposed by statute" and wouldn't exist without the law.
The court rejected the argument.
"This case is different . . . because it involves a
traditional equitable subrogation, not a liability created by statute.
Indeed, no statute even refers to APIP benefits, much less a subrogation
claim by an APIP carrier against a tortfeasor," Judge Robert S.
Smith wrote for the court.
Allstate missed its chance, he said.
"Nothing required Allstate to acquiesce, as it did, in a
settlement between Walker and Stein in which all the consideration went
to Walker and none to Allstate," Smith said, and the company passed
up its chance to recover from the settlement Walker received.
COPYRIGHT 2004 JR Publishing,
Inc. Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Copyright 2004, Gale Group. All rights
reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.