The defendant's good-faith efforts to obtain additional verification about the offending vehicle being uninsured constituted good cause for not addressing plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment in this no-fault action arising from a pedestrian "knockdown" accident. The defendant requested to respond to the plaintiff's discovery demands. The plaintiff submitted claims on behalf of its assignor, and the defendant requested that the plaintiff provide proof of lack of insurance and a "household affidavit" within 30 days. The court noted that as the defendant did not receive timely responses to its verification demands, the 30-day period in which it had to address the plaintiff's claim was never triggered. The court noted that, even though the plaintiff established it sent the defendant proof of claim, the defendant's good-faith efforts to obtain additional verification about the offending vehicle being uninsured constituted good cause for not addressing the claim. The defendant successfully raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff provided relevant information needed to take action on the no-fault claim. The court also held that the defendant was precluded from responding to discovery demands having failed twice before to do so. Thus, the plaintiff and the defendant's cross-motions for summary judgment were denied.

Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2010