—[*1] George C. Dinstber III, Cincinnatus, appellant pro se.

Goldberg & Segalla, L.L.P., Buffalo (Anthony L. Germano of counsel), for respondent.

Stein, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Rumsey, J.), entered January 23, 2009 in Cortland County, which, among other things, granted defendant’s motion to extend its time to answer and to compel plaintiff to accept late service of the answer.

In January 2002, plaintiff notified defendant, his no-fault insurance carrier, of an accident wherein the car he was driving was struck from behind. Defendant denied coverage for the claim in July 2002. Almost six years later, plaintiff commenced this action for breach of contract and dealing in bad faith.

Plaintiff served a summons and verified complaint on the Insurance Department on July 29, 2008 pursuant to Insurance Law § 1212. However, defendant allegedly did not receive them until August 21, 2008. Although defendant served an answer on August 28, 2008, plaintiff rejected it because it was not verified. On September 4, 2008—one day after receiving plaintiff’s letter of rejection—defendant served a second answer, virtually identical to the first but properly verified, which was rejected by plaintiff as untimely. Defendant then promptly moved to extend its time to answer and to compel plaintiff to accept late service thereof. Plaintiff cross-moved for a default judgment. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion—giving defendant 30 days to file, serve and file proof of service of the second answer—and denied plaintiff’s cross motion. Plaintiff now appeals and we affirm. [*2]

Pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d), Supreme Court has the discretion to permit late service of an answer upon the demonstration of a reasonable excuse for the delay or default (see Rickert v Chestara, 56 AD3d 941, 942 [2008]; Watson v Pollacchi, 32 AD3d 565, 565 [2006]). “To that end, ‘[w]hether there is a reasonable excuse for a default is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits’ ” (Rickert v Chestara, 56 AD3d at 942, quoting Harcztark v Drive Variety, Inc., 21 AD3d 876, 876-877 [2005]; see Watson v Pollacchi, 32 AD3d at 565). Also relevant is whether the untimely answer sets forth a meritorious defense to plaintiff’s complaint (see Rickert v Chestara, 56 AD3d at 942; Watson v Pollacchi, 32 AD3d at 565).

Here, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, we find that defendant proffered both a reasonable excuse for its delay in serving a verified answer and a sufficiently meritorious defense to the claims. Defendant proffered several reasons for its delay. First, defendant submitted evidence that it did not actually receive the complaint from the Insurance Department until one week before the time to answer expired and that an incorrect date of service on the transmittal sheet caused further delay in the complaint being referred to counsel. After unsuccessfully attempting to contact plaintiff to obtain an extension of time to serve an answer, defendant effected such service one day after counsel’s receipt of the complaint. Secondly, defendant alleged law office failure in neglecting to include the verification with the initial answer, which was timely served. In our view, these circumstances established a reasonable excuse for the default (see CPLR 2005).

We also note that defendant’s answer set forth a myriad of defenses including, among others, failure to state a cause of action, failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy, fraud or perjury on plaintiff’s part and that the claim is time-barred. In addition, defendant’s attorney provided Supreme Court with the original denial of coverage letter, which set forth in detail the reasons why plaintiff’s claim for benefits was denied. Such assertions set forth a sufficiently meritorious defense for purposes of defendant’s motion (see Chase Manhattan Automotive Fin. Corp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 272 AD2d 772, 774-775 [2000]).

In view of defendant’s reasonable excuse for the default, the minimal delay, defendant’s expeditious motion to compel acceptance of the answer, the absence of proof that the default was willful or any indication that plaintiff was prejudiced by the delay, and the existence of an arguably meritorious defense, we conclude that Supreme Court’s decision to grant defendant’s motion to extend the time to answer and to compel plaintiff to accept service was a proper exercise of its discretion (see Rickert v Chestara, 56 AD3d at 942; Acker v VanEpps, 45 AD3d 1104, 1105, 1106 [2007]).

Plaintiff’s remaining contentions, to the extent they are properly before us, have been considered and found to be unavailing.

Cardona, P.J., Rose, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

—[*1] Basch & Keegan, L.L.P., Kingston (Eli Basch of counsel), for appellants.

Goldberg Segalla, L.L.P., Albany (Matthew S. Lerner of counsel), for respondent.

Kane, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered January 7, 2009 in Greene County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

After plaintiff Mary Proper (hereinafter plaintiff) was involved in a motor vehicle accident, she applied for no-fault insurance benefits from defendant. Defendant paid for plaintiff’s medical treatment and lost wages. Plaintiff’s medical insurers, Medicare and Blue Cross and Blue Shield (hereinafter BCBS), also allegedly paid for some of her medical treatment. Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that defendant breached its contract by failing to fully provide no-fault benefits. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court granted the motion, prompting plaintiffs’ appeal.

Because plaintiffs failed to support their claim with admissible evidence that they suffered damages, Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Failure to prove the essential element of damages is fatal to a cause of action for breach of contract (see Fellion v Darling, 14 AD3d 904, 907 [2005]; Orville v Newski, Inc., 155 AD2d 799, 800 [1989], lv dismissed 75 NY2d 946 [1990]). Here, plaintiff testified at her deposition that she had not personally paid any medical bills. While she asserts that BCBS paid $12,000 in medical bills and [*2]has asserted a lien against her recovery in a separate personal injury action against the driver of the other vehicle, the record does not contain any claim from BCBS to support these assertions. There are no bills or statements of the amount allegedly paid by BCBS or even proof that any such payments were actually made. As plaintiffs bear the burden of proving damages, and cannot meet that burden with pure speculation or bare assertions, the court correctly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Peak v Northway Travel Trailers, Inc., 27 AD3d 927, 929 [2006]; New Horizons Amusement Enters. v Zullo, 301 AD2d 825, 827 [2003]; Seaman v Berman, 239 AD2d 738, 738-739 [1997]; see also Berley Indus. v City of New York, 45 NY2d 683, 687 [1978]).

Peters, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

—[*1] Taylor & Associates, Albany (Keith M. Frary of counsel), for appellant.

Taller & Wizman, P.C., Forest Hills (David Taller of counsel), for respondent.

Kavanagh, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Hard, J.), entered March 19, 2008 in Albany County, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration between the parties.

In October 2004, respondent was involved in an automobile accident when the vehicle he was driving was rear-ended by an automobile operated by Syed Chowdhury and owned by Mohammed Ali. Three weeks after the accident, respondent’s counsel sent a letter to petitioner, respondent’s insurer, notifying it that respondent had been injured in an automobile accident, had incurred medical expenses, lost wages from work and would be seeking no-fault benefits under his insurance policy. The letter also stated that “if our investigation reveals that the offending vehicle was not insured or underinsured, we are therefore reserving our rights to pursue [uninsured motorist/supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist] benefits under [said] endorsement in the policy.” More than two years later, in December 2006, respondent’s counsel notified petitioner that he was in the process of settling a lawsuit that respondent had commenced against Ali for the limits of Ali’s insurance policy and that respondent, upon such settlement, intended to seek supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (hereinafter SUM) benefits under his policy with petitioner. On January 3, 2007, petitioner notified respondent that it was disclaiming coverage under the policy on the grounds that respondent had failed to provide it with timely notice not only of his lawsuit against Ali, but also of his claim for SUM benefits. [*2]After respondent served petitioner with a notice to compel arbitration, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 75 proceeding requesting that arbitration be permanently stayed. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. Petitioner argues, and we agree, that respondent, on the facts presented, has failed to comply with the provisions of the policy that require prompt notice be given of any third-party litigation or any claim for SUM benefits^[FN*] (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Earl], 284 AD2d 1002, 1003 [2001]). However, for petitioner to effectively disclaim any liability under the SUM provision of the policy, it is still obligated to establish that it has been prejudiced in some meaningful way by this delay (see Rekemeyer v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 NY3d 468, 475 [2005]; Matter of Brandon [Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.], 97 NY2d 491, 498 [2002]; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v Davalos, 39 AD3d 654, 655 [2007]; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Ward, 38 AD3d 898, 899 [2007]; Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. [Mackey], 25 AD3d 905, 906 [2006]). While respondent’s letter did not satisfy his obligation to provide prompt notice, it did put petitioner on notice of the existence of the accident and the potential implications it held for its policy.

There is no dispute that petitioner was put on notice of the existence of the accident within three weeks of its occurrence and that respondent would be submitting a claim pursuant to the no-fault provisions of the policy. With that notice, petitioner also received the police report prepared in connection with the accident that identified the individuals involved in the accident as well as the vehicle each individual was operating. Petitioner was also notified at that time that respondent would seek SUM coverage under its policy if the tortfeasor’s policy proved inadequate to fully compensate him for the injuries that he sustained in the accident. Under the circumstances, petitioner had ample information at its disposal shortly after the accident occurred to properly investigate this claim and ensure that its interests under the policy were fully protected. Equally important, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that respondent’s delay in notifying it of the third-party action or the SUM claim in any way compromised its ability to investigate the circumstances surrounding the accident or to protect its interests under this policy (see Rekemeyer v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 NY3d at 475; Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. [Mackey], 25 AD3d at 907). As such, its application to stay arbitration was properly denied.

Peters, J.P., Rose and Kane, JJ., concur; Spain, J., not taking part. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Footnotes

Footnote *: Petitioner’s SUM policy required that “[a]s soon as practicable, the insured or other person making claim shall give us written notice of claim under this SUM coverage.” Additionally, the SUM endorsement provided that “if the insured . . . brings any lawsuit against any person or organization legally responsible for the use of a motor vehicle involved in the accident, a copy of the summons and complaint or other process served in connection with the lawsuit shall be forwarded immediately” to petitioner.

—[*1] Carman, Callahan & Ingham, L.L.P., Farmingdale (Michael F. Ingham of counsel), for appellant.

Gregory J. Allen, State Insurance Fund, Liverpool (Susan B. Marris of counsel), for respondent.

Spain, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Egan, Jr., J.), entered February 6, 2008 in Albany County, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate an arbitration award.

On July 12, 2004, Michael Chesebro was driving in the Village of Baldwinsville, Onondaga County when his vehicle was struck in the rear by Deborah Redden,^[FN1] who was operating a 1999 Dodge minivan owned by her employer, Julie J. Taddeo, the owner of Affordable Wheelchair Transportation. Chesebro was injured. Petitioner insured the minivan, which was registered as a [*2]passenger vehicle but bore livery license plates belonging to a commercial vehicle, a 1998 Dodge minivan also owned by Taddeo, which was insured by another carrier. It is uncontested that on this day Redden was using the passenger vehicle bearing the livery plates to transport passengers for Taddeo’s business.

After paying workers’ compensation benefits to Chesebro, respondent filed an application (a PIP form) for arbitration with the New York Personal Injury Subrogation Arbitration Forum, seeking intercompany reimbursement of those paid benefits ($50,000) from petitioner pursuant to the loss transfer provisions of Insurance Law § 5105 (a). Petitioner submitted a PIP form denying the claim, asserting that its insured’s passenger vehicle was her personal vehicle and not used primarily for the transportation of persons or property, as required by Insurance Law § 5105 (a). After limited documentary evidence was submitted,^[FN2] the arbitrator determined that respondent was entitled to reimbursement from petitioner. Petitioner then commenced this proceeding to vacate the arbitration award, which Supreme Court denied, and petitioner now appeals.

As relevant here, Insurance Law § 5105 (a) provides that an insurer liable for first party benefits or a workers’ compensation carrier that pays benefits in lieu of first party benefits, which another insurer would otherwise be obligated to pay but for the No-Fault Law, has a right to recover “only if at least one of the motor vehicles involved [weighs] more than [6,500 pounds] unloaded or is . . . used principally for the transportation of persons or property for hire” (emphasis added). The latter alternate requirements have been recognized to be “condition[s] precedent to ultimate recovery” (Matter of Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v New York State Ins. Fund, 47 AD3d 633, 634 [2008]), and were added by amendment in 1977 “to limit the right of insurance carriers to recover first-party payments” (Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 132 AD2d 930, 931 [1987], affd 71 NY2d 1013 [1988]). Respondent, as the applicant seeking reimbursement, bore the burden of proof to show entitlement to recover benefits paid^[FN3] (see e.g. Matter of Hanover Ins. Co. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 226 AD2d 533, 534 [1996]; Matter of Eveready Ins. Co. v Lumberman’s Mut. Cas. Co., 201 AD2d 649, 649 [1994]; Republic Claims Serv. Co. v Allstate Ins. Co., 160 AD2d 925, 926 [1990]). Insurance Law § 5105 (b) “provides that mandatory arbitration is the sole remedy regarding disputes between insurers over responsibility for payment of first-party benefits” (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 150 AD2d 976, 977[*3][1989]).

Here, the record is devoid of evidence establishing the “principal use” of the passenger vehicle insured by petitioner. No proof established when the livery plates were put on the passenger vehicle, or if this plate-switching or use of the passenger vehicle to transport persons or property for hire occurred on any occasions other than the date of the accident, i.e., if it was Taddeo’s or Redden’s practice to use this passenger vehicle “for hire.” Petitioner did not submit an affidavit from its insured and none of the documentary evidence established that the “principal use” of the vehicle it insured was other than its registered status as a passenger vehicle (compare Victoria Ins. Co. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 87, 87 [2004]), i.e., the only evidence is that on the day of this accident, the passenger vehicle was being used “for hire,” bearing livery plates from another vehicle.

Where, as here, the parties are obligated by statutory mandate to submit their dispute to arbitration (see Insurance Law § 5105 [b]), the arbitrator’s determination is subject to “closer judicial scrutiny” than with voluntary arbitration (Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 223 [1996]). “To be upheld, an award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious” (id. [citations omitted]; see Matter of Utica Mut. Ins. Co. [Selective Ins. Co. of Am.], 27 AD3d 990, 992 [2006]). On this record, there is no evidentiary support or rational basis for the arbitrator’s determination that petitioner’s insured passenger vehicle was used “principally . . . for hire” as required for respondent to obtain reimbursement under Insurance Law § 5105 (a) (see Matter of Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v New York State Ins. Fund, 47 AD3d at 634; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v American Arbitration Assn., 26 AD3d 374, 374 [2006]; Matter of Kemper Ins. Co. v Westport Ins. Co., 9 AD3d 431, 432 [2004]). To the extent that the arbitrator granted respondent’s application based upon its finding that petitioner’s insured passenger vehicle was “at the time” being used as a vehicle for hire, such a conclusion is inadequate to support the award and is “in disregard of the standard prescribed by the legislature” (Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493, 506 [1970]), i.e., that one of the vehicles be used “principally . . . for hire” (Insurance Law § 5105 [a] [emphasis added]). The arbitration award should, therefore, be vacated.

Further, respondent relies heavily on petitioner’s failure to produce evidence presumably within its possession or reach regarding the principal use of its insured’s vehicle. However, the record does not reflect that respondent availed itself of any of the avenues for discovery, such as requesting a hearing at which witnesses could be called (see CPLR 7506 [c]), asking the arbitrator to issue subpoenas to procure documentary evidence (see CPLR 7505; see also Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 7505, at 682-683 [1998]) or, as a last resort, applying to the court for an order directing disclosure in aid of arbitration upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances (see CPLR 3102 [c]; see also Siegel, NY Prac § 597, at 1052-1054 [4th ed]; Matter of Goldsborough v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 217 AD2d 546, 547 [1995], appeal dismissed 86 NY2d 834 [1995]). While “[u]nder the CPLR, arbiters do not have the power to direct the parties to engage in disclosure proceedings” (De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 406 [1974]; see Matter of Goldsborough v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 217 AD2d at 547), avenues of disclosure were clearly available (see Siegel, NY Prac § 597, at 1052-1054 [4th ed]).

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, petitioner’s application granted and arbitration award vacated.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: Chesebro’s vehicle then struck the vehicle in front of him.

Footnote 2: Respondent’s proof included the accident report, Department of Motor Vehicles records, claim payment data sheets, copies of bills paid, and workers’ compensation award decisions. Petitioner submitted the Department of Motor Vehicles records, pictures of the vehicles and insurance documents.

Footnote 3: We do not agree with the arbitrator’s conclusion that petitioner’s position, that its insured vehicle was not used “principally . . . for hire,” is an affirmative defense. Rather, the principal use of the vehicle is a threshold part of respondent’s required showing, as the applicant seeking reimbursement under Insurance Law § 5105 (a) (see CPLR 3018; cf. Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v City of Yonkers, 21 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2005]).

—[*1] Basch & Keegan, L.L.P., Kingston (Derek J. Spada of counsel), for appellant.

Finder & Cuomo, L.L.P., New York City (Paul L. Meli of counsel), for respondent.

Spain, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Czajka, J.), entered January 8, 2007 in Columbia County, which, among other things, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

The facts are undisputed. On May 29, 2005, plaintiff was a passenger in a car driven by his friend and owned by plaintiff’s mother. They stopped for gas and, while plaintiff was pumping gasoline, the gas pump nozzle popped out of the car’s fuel tank, causing some gasoline to spill on the ground and, unbeknownst to him, on his clothing. Plaintiff then entered the gas station store to purchase a pack of cigarettes. Shortly after leaving the gas station in the vehicle, plaintiff attempted to light a cigarette, causing the gasoline on his clothing to ignite. As a result, he suffered severe burns to the right side of his body, right arm and leg.

Defendant denied plaintiff’s claim for no-fault insurance benefits on the ground that his injuries did not arise out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle (see Insurance Law § 5102 [b]; § 5103 [a] [1]). Plaintiff then commenced the instant action in Supreme Court seeking to recover no-fault insurance benefits. After discovery was completed, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of his entitlement to no-fault insurance benefits and defendant cross-moved for a declaratory judgment that defendant has no obligation to plaintiff. Supreme Court granted defendant’s cross motion and denied plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff now appeals.

No-fault insurance benefits are payable only if a person’s injury “aris[es] out of the use [*2]or operation of a motor vehicle” (Insurance Law § 5102 [b]; see § 5103 [a] [1]). Inasmuch as “[t]he vehicle must be a proximate cause of the injury before the absolute liability imposed by the statute arises” (Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d 211, 215 [1996]), we agree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that plaintiff’s injuries—sustained when he attempted to light a cigarette, igniting gasoline that he had spilled on his clothing—did not arise out of the use of the vehicle. Indeed, plaintiff’s injuries would have occurred even if he had never reentered the vehicle and his friend had driven away (see Sullivan v Barry Scott Agency, Inc., 23 AD3d 889, 890 [2005]; cf. Matter of Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co. [Trapani], 301 AD2d 740, 741-742 [2003]). Thus, although plaintiff’s injuries occurred while he was inside the moving vehicle, because “the vehicle itself was not a cause of the damage,” he is not entitled to no-fault benefits (Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d at 215; see Sullivan v Barry Scott Agency, Inc., 23 AD3d at 890, Sochinski v Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co., 221 AD2d 889 [1995]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

—[*1] Goldberg Segalla, L.L.P., Albany (Stuart Bodoff of Rivkin Radler, L.L.P., Uniondale, of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of Craig Meyerson, Latham (Craig Meyerson of counsel), for respondents.

Mugglin, J. Appeals (1) from three orders of the Supreme Court (Pulver, Jr., J.), entered January 12, 2007, January 26, 2007 and April 16, 2007 in Greene County, which, among other things, granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on certain causes of action, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.

Plaintiffs, two psychological services providers, sued defendant to recover on no-fault claims assigned to them by individuals insured by defendant who had been injured in automobile accidents. At issue on this appeal is the grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs on certain causes of action, the computation of interest thereon and the award of counsel fees. With respect to the first issue, defendant argued that plaintiffs failed to establish standing to commence the action by reason of their failure to submit documentation establishing the assignment of the claims to them. Defendant’s counsel has advised that, in light of the Court of Appeals decision in Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (9 NY3d 312 [2007]), this issue has been withdrawn.

Turning to the remaining arguments, we first reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court improperly awarded interest to plaintiffs by not tolling the interest for the period between 30 days after plaintiffs received the claim denial until plaintiffs commenced this action. Since [*2]defendant failed to raise this challenge to the proposed judgment before Supreme Court, the issue is unpreserved for our review (see Ferran v Dwyer, 252 AD2d 758, 759 [1998]; Hopper v Lockey, 241 AD2d 892, 893-894 [1997]). In any event, the argument is meritless. Interest on untimely paid no-fault claims is calculated at the rate of 2% per month, compounded, commencing 30 days after proper presentment of the claim (see 11 NYCRR former 65.15 [h] [1]; Hempstead Gen. Hosp. v Insurance Co. of N. Am., 208 AD2d 501, 501 [1994]; Smithtown Gen. Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 207 AD2d 338, 339 [1994]). Interest will be stayed only in those circumstances where a claimant has failed to submit the claim to arbitration or to commence an action within 30 days after receipt of the timely denial of the claim and does not, thereafter, begin to accrue until action is taken (see East Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 104, 106 [2007]). Here, defendant did not issue a proper and timely denial to plaintiffs’ no-fault claims and, thus, defendant is not entitled to the benefit of the tolling provision. This interpretation of the regulatory scheme promotes the prompt resolution and compensation of claims and prohibits any reward to a “dilatory insurance company” (Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 552, 558 [2007]). Thus, to avoid penalizing injured parties and to encourage the prompt resolution of claims, insurance companies are not entitled to a tolling of the accumulation of interest where they have failed to pay or properly deny a claim within the required time limits (see Cardinell v Allstate Ins. Co., 302 AD2d 772, 774 [2003]).

Finally, Supreme Court did not err in awarding counsel fees on a per claim basis rather than a per assignor basis. When forced to commence an action to compel the payment of a proper no-fault claim, a claimant is entitled to recover counsel fees in the sum of 20% of the amount of first-party benefits, plus interest, subject to a maximum fee of $850 (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR former 65.17 [b] [6] [v]; 65.18 [f] [5]). Notably, the Superintendent of Insurance issued an opinion letter on October 8, 2003 that counsel fees are calculated on a per assignor basis (see Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 03-10-04 [Oct. 2003]; Marigliano v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 1079 [2006]). We conclude that such opinion letter is not an appropriate interpretation of the statute. Although we ordinarily give deference to the agency’s interpretation of its own regulations, such deference need not be accorded where, as here, the interpretation conflicts with the explicit language of the controlling statute (see Marigliano v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 766, 774 [2007]; Alpha Chiropractic P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 673, 678 [2006]).

The Superintendent’s interpretation undermines the goal of the no-fault law to fully compensate a claimant for economic loss resulting from the wrongful denial of a claim and wastes judicial assets by encouraging the commencement of multiple actions in order to recover the maximum available counsel fees (see Midwood Total Rehab. Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 480, 482 [2007]). Moreover, in spite of the Superintendent’s opinion letter, the well-settled case law is that the statute requires payment of counsel fees on a per claim basis (see Marigliano v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d at 772; Valley Stream Med. & Rehab, P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 576 [2007]; Alpha Chiropractic P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d at 673; Willis Acupuncture, P.C. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 1002[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51702[U] [2004]).

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders and judgment are affirmed, with costs.

—[*1] Basch & Keegan, L.L.P., Kingston (Derek J. Spada of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Law Office of Teresa M. Spina, Woodbury (Emilio A. Cacace of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Cardona, P.J. Cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered October 6, 2006 in Ulster County, which, among other things, vacated an inquest and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff was injured while driving a vehicle insured by defendant. After initially paying plaintiff no-fault insurance benefits, defendant terminated any additional payments citing plaintiff’s failure to appear for independent medical examinations. Plaintiff then commenced this action to recover benefits allegedly owed to her.

Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s subsequent motion for summary judgment and directed plaintiff to submit a proposed judgment. Defendant did not object to the judgment, which was then adopted by Supreme Court. Thereafter, defendant successfully moved to vacate the judgment based upon plaintiff’s improper service and filing thereof, and Supreme Court granted its request for an inquest on the issue of damages.

At the inquest, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. Supreme Court denied that motion, without prejudice, but vacated the inquest, determining that it was premature as the [*2]issues raised in the motion required further discovery. These cross appeals ensued, with defendant contending that its motion to dismiss should have been granted, and plaintiff arguing that Supreme Court should not have vacated the inquest.

Defendant argues four grounds in support of its motion to dismiss the complaint. First, it contends that plaintiff’s purported assignment of her right to receive benefits deprived her of standing to commence this action. As an objection to standing must be made by a preanswer motion to dismiss or asserted as a defense in the answer (see CPLR 3211 [e]; Matter of Prudco Realty Corp. v Palermo, 60 NY2d 656, 657 [1983]), defendant’s motion on this basis is untimely. Next, defendant contends that plaintiff did not timely submit certain claims for no-fault benefits. However, an insurer must ” ‘stand or fall upon the defense upon which it based its refusal to pay’ ” and cannot later create new defenses by requiring an insured’s compliance with the policy provisions (King v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 218 AD2d 863, 865 [1995], quoting Beckley v Otsego County Farmers Coop. Fire Ins. Co., 3 AD2d 190, 194 [1957]; see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 198-200 [1997]). Having initially denied plaintiff’s claims based on her failure to attend independent medical examinations, defendant cannot now base a motion to dismiss on this new ground.

As the third ground for dismissal, defendant claims that because plaintiff has not suffered out-of-pocket damages for which it would be obligated to pay, plaintiff has not stated a cause of action. However, no-fault benefits are intended to reimburse persons for, among other things, medical expenses “incurred” as a result of a motor vehicle accident (Insurance Law § 5102 [a]). Plaintiff incurred such expenses at the time that she received treatment for her injuries (see e.g. Rubin v Empire Mut. Ins. Co., 25 NY2d 426 [1969]; see also 11 Couch on Insurance 3d § 158:12) and the fact that the bills may have already been paid by other sources, including her private health insurer, does not extinguish defendant’s obligation. Finally, while defendant correctly contends that it is not precluded from challenging plaintiff’s bills on the basis of noncoverage (see e.g. Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d at 199-202; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Triboro Coach, 263 AD2d 11, 18-19 [1999]; King v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 218 AD2d at 865), we find that defendant’s motion submissions were not sufficient to establish its entitlement to dismissal on this basis.

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss. However, we discern no basis to vacate the inquest and order more discovery on the above issues. Neither party requested additional discovery before Supreme Court or argues for it on appeal and, absent any clear need for further discovery, we conclude that “all proof necessary to determine the appropriate damage award was before the court” (Domino Media v Kranis, 215 AD2d 278 [1995]). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to Supreme Court to make a determination of damages (see id.).

Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as vacated the inquest and ordered additional discovery; matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.

—[*1]

Carpinello, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dawson, J.), entered November 18, 2005 in Clinton County, which, inter alia, partially granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff was injured in an April 2002 automobile accident for which she received no-fault benefits from defendant, her automobile insurance carrier.^[FN*] At some point thereafter, however, defendant refused to cover certain treatments prompting plaintiff to commence this action. In addition to asserting a breach of contract claim against defendant, plaintiff asserted causes of action sounding in bad faith and tort (with a concomitant request for punitive damages). At issue is an order of Supreme Court which, among other things, dismissed the bad faith and tort causes of action. We now affirm.

Construing the complaint in the liberal light to which it is entitled on a motion to dismiss (see CPLR 3211 [a]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we nevertheless [*2]conclude that the causes of action sounding in tort and bad faith were not properly stated. The essence of plaintiff’s dispute with defendant is the latter’s breach of contract in failing to provide her with continued no-fault benefits following her accident. Plaintiff has failed to allege or demonstrate the creation of a relationship or duty between herself and defendant separate from this contractual obligation; therefore, no independent tort claim lies (see New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 319-320 [1995]; Logan v Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 275 AD2d 187, 192-193 [2000], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 823 [2001]). Moreover, no separate cause of action exists in tort for an insured’s alleged bad faith in failing to perform its contractual obligations (see New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., supra; Zawahir v Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 22 AD3d 841, 842 [2005]; Royal Indem. Co. v Salomon Smith Barney, 308 AD2d 349, 350 [2003]; Bettan v Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 296 AD2d 469, 470 [2002], lv dismissed 99 NY2d 552 [2002]). Thus, the bad faith claim was also properly dismissed.

To the extent that plaintiff also sought punitive damages in her complaint, such demands were also properly dismissed because there is no basis for determining that defendant’s conduct constitutes a tort independent of the contract (see New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., supra at 316-317; Logan v Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, supra at 194) and because her allegations do not demonstrate that defendant, in dealing with the general public, engaged in egregious or fraudulent conduct evincing “such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations” (New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., supra at 316 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 83 NY2d 603, 613 [1994]; see Varveris v Hermitage Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 537, 538 [2005]; Sweazey v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 169 AD2d 43, 46 [1991], lv dismissed 78 NY2d 1072 [1991]; Hebert v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 124 AD2d 958, 959 [1986], lv dismissed 69 NY2d 1038 [1987]; Korona v State Wide Ins. Co., 122 AD2d 120, 121 [1986]).

To the extent preserved, plaintiff’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and rejected, including the claim that the driver of the vehicle should have been added as a party.

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Footnotes

Footnote *: Plaintiff was not driving her vehicle at the time of the accident but rather was a front-seat passenger.

—[*1]

Spain, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (McNamara, J.), entered June 1, 2005 in Albany County, which, inter alia, partially granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs commenced this action as the assignees of the no-fault insurance claim rights of 15 individuals to whom plaintiffs provided psychological treatment following automobile accidents. Asserting that defendant had failed to timely deny coverage or seek verification of the insurance claims, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. Defendant cross-moved for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130 and for severance of the claims. Supreme Court granted summary judgment with respect to the third, a portion of the seventh, tenth, eleventh and thirteenth causes of action and otherwise denied plaintiffs’ motion. The court denied defendant’s cross motion for sanctions and severance. On defendant’s appeal, we affirm.

“[A]n insurer is required to either pay or deny a claim for no-fault automobile insurance benefits within 30 days from the date an applicant supplies proof of claim” (Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997]; see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR former 65.15 [g]; 65-3.8; LaHendro v Travelers Ins. Co., 220 AD2d 971, 972 [1995]). A plaintiff may obtain summary judgment on a cause of action to recover first-party no-fault benefits by “submitting evidentiary proof that the prescribed statutory billing forms had been [*2]mailed and received, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue” (Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742, 742-743 [2004]; see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]).

Defendant asserts that plaintiffs failed to provide adequate proof that the claim forms were properly mailed and, thus, did not establish a prima facie case of entitlement to benefits. Plaintiffs supplied direct proof of actual mailing by producing signed and stamped mailing certificates (see Badio v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 229, 230 [2004]). In addition, plaintiffs’ officer, Jonathan Kogen, provided an affidavit stating—based on his review of plaintiffs’ business records and his own personal knowledge—that plaintiffs mailed the claim forms to defendant and that none were returned as undeliverable. This “proof of proper mailing gives rise to a presumption that the item was received by the addressee” (Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679, 680 [2001]). Defendant has not submitted proof to rebut this presumption; indeed, defendant does not deny receipt of the claims and, in fact, its papers in opposition include evidence that claims were received on dates which correspond to those in the mailing receipts produced by plaintiffs. Accordingly, we hold that plaintiffs met their prima facie burden of proof with regard to mailing of the claim forms.

Defendant also asserts that plaintiffs failed to establish a valid assignment of benefits because the assignor’s signature on the assignment forms was not properly authenticated. Upon receipt of the allegedly defective assignments, defendant had 10 days to request verification (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [a]; former 65.15 [d]). “[F]ailure to object to the adequacy of . . . claim forms within 10 days of receipt constitute[s] a waiver of any defenses based thereon, including the alleged lack of a valid assignment of benefits” (Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564, 565 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 713 [2005]; see Nyack Hosp. v Encompass Ins. Co., 23 AD3d 535, 535-536 [2005]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co., 21 AD3d 348, 348-349 [2005]; but see Siegel v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 888 [2004]). Inasmuch as defendant failed to request verification of the assignments at issue within the 10-day period proscribed by regulation, its objection to the assignments was waived.

Next, we are unpersuaded by defendant’s arguments that summary judgment was premature because discovery was incomplete. In opposition to the prima facie case established by plaintiffs, defendant “did not make the required showing that ‘further discovery may raise a triable issue of fact’ ” (Williams v General Elec. Co., 8 AD3d 866, 867 [2004], quoting Mitchell v Atlas Copco N. Am., 307 AD2d 635, 636 [2003]; see Herba v Chichester, 301 AD2d 822, 823 [2003]). Indeed, it is undisputed that defendant did not send timely delay notices or claim denials; thus, defendant is precluded from raising any defense to payment of the claims unless such denial is based on lack of coverage (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., supra at 282). Defendant’s remaining argument in opposition to summary judgment—that plaintiffs committed fraud by misrepresenting Kogen as a “treating doctor” although he did not personally provide or supervise the psychological services rendered by plaintiffs, and that such fraud falls within the narrow “lack of coverage” exception, obviating the need for a timely denial—has been rejected by this Court (see Valley Psychological v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 718 [2006] [decided herewith]).

Defendant asserts that Supreme Court abused its discretion in failing to sanction plaintiffs for asserting frivolous causes of action because several of the claims asserted had been paid or settled. Sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130 should be awarded for taking legal actions which are completely without merit in law, are undertaken primarily to delay the [*3]resolution of the litigation or assert false material statements of fact (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]; Ireland v GEICO Corp., 2 AD3d 917, 919 [2003]; Mountain Lion Baseball v Gaiman, 263 AD2d 636, 639 [1999]). That level of misconduct has not been established here. The record reveals that plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew one of the allegedly frivolous claims and the others were not dismissed because Supreme Court found issues of fact existed as to whether payment had been made or a settlement had been reached. Under these circumstances and absent proof of actual payment or settlement, we find no basis to interfere with Supreme Court’s sound discretion (see Northern Adirondack Cent. School Dist. v La Plante Co., 229 AD2d 764, 766 [1996]; Golden v Barker, 223 AD2d 769, 770 [1996]).

Finally, we discern no abuse of discretion in Supreme Court’s decision not to sever the claims (see CPLR 603; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Dayco Prods., Inc., 19 AD3d 923, 924-926 [2005]; Hempstead Gen. Hosp. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 134 AD2d 569, 570 [1987]).

Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

—[*1]

Kane, J. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), entered May 16, 2005, which affirmed an order of the City Court of the City of Albany dismissing the claim.

Plaintiff alleges that it provided psychological testing and psychotherapy to a woman after her involvement in a motor vehicle accident. It is undisputed that the woman was injured in an accident involving a vehicle insured by defendant, thus invoking coverage by defendant. As assignee of the woman’s no-fault insurance claims, plaintiff submitted to defendant two bills for services rendered. Defendant denied both claims, but those denials were issued more than 30 days after the claims were received. Plaintiff filed a commercial claim in Albany City Court seeking payment. At trial, defendant asserted a defense of provider fraud, alleging that plaintiff submitted fraudulent bills because its principal licensed psychologist did not provide active and personal supervision over the employees providing services to plaintiff’s assignor as required by workers’ compensation schedules.^[FN*] City Court determined that defendant’s assertion of a fraud [*2]defense was not precluded by its untimely denial, then dismissed the claim based on the fraud defense (195 Misc 2d 540 [2002]). Upon plaintiff’s appeal, County Court affirmed. Plaintiff now appeals to this Court.

Because defendant’s untimely denial precluded it from asserting the defense raised here, plaintiff was entitled to judgment in its favor. While our review of this City Court claim is limited to whether “substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (UCCA 1807; see Sten v Desrocher, 8 AD3d 915, 915 [2004]), the misapplication of substantive law in this case mandates a reversal. The law requires an insurer to accept or deny a claim for no-fault benefits within 30 days after the claimant provides proof of the claim (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR former 65.15 [g]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997]). An insurer that fails to deny a claim within the 30-day period is precluded from raising most defenses (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., supra at 282; Loudermilk v Allstate Ins. Co., 178 AD2d 897, 898 [1991]; Ultra Diagnostics Imaging v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 9 Misc 3d 97, 98 [2005]). Untimely disclaimers, however, do not preclude an insurer from denying liability “on a strict lack of coverage ground” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 198 [1997]).

Defendant successfully argued in City Court and County Court that its fraud defense asserted a lack of coverage thereby rendering its untimely denials irrelevant. We disagree. In contrast to fraudulent conduct such as staging an automobile accident, which results in no coverage at all—thus not requiring a timely denial—coverage is not extinguished by allegations, or even proof, that a medical services provider unilaterally schemed to defraud the insurer by providing unnecessary or excessive treatment—thus requiring a timely denial to avoid preclusion of the defense (see Ultra Diagnostics Imaging v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., supra at 99-100; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 9 Misc 3d 76, 78-79 [2005]; Melbourne Med., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 92, 94 [2004]). In fact, the Court of Appeals expressly noted that the fraud exception from preclusion for untimely denials does not apply to a defense that the provider’s treatment was excessive, as that defense does “not ordinarily implicate a coverage matter” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., supra at 199, 202). Because the defense raised here was analogous to an argument that the treatment was excessive or unnecessary, it does not implicate coverage and therefore required a timely denial. Since defendant’s fraud defense was precluded, substantial justice was not meted out according to the substantive law, requiring reversal and remittal for City Court to determine the amount of judgment to be entered in plaintiff’s favor (see UCCA 1807).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and matter remitted to the City Court of the City of Albany for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

Footnotes

Footnote *: Medical providers must comply with workers’ compensation payment schedules to qualify for payment under the no-fault law (see Insurance Law § 5108; 11 NYCRR 68.1)