In the Matter of the Arbitration between: Continental Medical PC and State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. and Citiwide Auto Leasing Inc.
AAA Case No. 412009051436
AAA Assessment No. 17 991 01956 10
Burt Feilich, Esq., arbitrator
Edited by Lawrence N. Rogak
This no-fault award came to two significant conclusions: (1) That when a renter is driving a rental car, the rental car pays the PIP claims; and (2) When an insurer issues a denial before the time to do so runs out, the statute of limitations does not begin to run on the date of denial, but on the date that the bills would have become overdue (i.e., the day after the time to pay or deny runs out).
”This claim is for $6,962.22 and involves medical, chiropractic, physical therapy, electrodiagnostic testing and MRI testing all rendered by applicant for the allegedly eligible injured person/assignor for the care and treatment of injuries sustained in an accident that occurred on June 27th, 2003. Both respondents contend that applicant did not commence this proceeding within the applicable statute of limitations and consequently this claim should be time barred.”
”Respondent State Farm contends that claimant was operating a non-insured motor vehicle at the time of the accident and that primary no-fault coverage rests with the registered owner of that vehicle, which was Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc. doing business as Dollar Rent A Car. Respondent Citiwide Auto Leasing contends that claimant used her own insurance policy with State Farm by declining contractually offered coverage and that therefore primary no-fault coverage should be provided by her household automobile insurer, State Farm Insurance.”
”The underlying accident took place on June 27th, 2003, at about 8:15 AM, in Brooklyn, NY, when claimant was operating a 2003 Chevrolet motor vehicle that she had rented earlier that very same morning from Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc. d/b/a Dollar Rent A Car. A copy of the car rental agreement was submitted by the parties. It appears that claimant declined to purchase optional coverages that were offered. To my understanding, none of the optional coverages either purchased or declined by claimant involve mandatory no-fault coverage required to be provided by the owner of the vehicle. It is alleged that claimant sustained injuries in this accident for which she received treatment at applicant’s facility.”
More – Rogak Report – June 4, 2010