United States: No Health Insurers Need Apply: Health Plan Can't Recover Medical Costs From NY No-Fault Insurer

Last Updated: July 27 2016
Article by Robert D. Helfand

Under no-fault laws, automobile policies typically must cover the cost of certain medical services provided to policyholders who have been injured in covered accidents. New York's insurance laws also permit those costs to be excluded from coverage under healthcare insurance policies. In 2008, an injured policyholder assigned her medical benefits to the providers who treated her, but those providers submitted their bills to the her healthcare insurer, and the insurer mistakenly paid them. Last month, in Aetna Health Plans v. Hanover Ins. Co., No. 12210 (N.Y. June 14, 2016), New York's highest court ruled that the state's no-fault regulations would not permit the insurer to recover its payments from the automobile carrier. In effect, the court's ruling advised healthcare insurers to stay well clear of the no-fault system.

How It Works

New York's no-fault law, Article 51 of the state's Insurance Law, was enacted in 1973 as the "Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations Act." The regulations promulgated under the no-fault law provide that all automobile policies must include mandatory Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage, which includes coverage for medical expenses incurred in connection with a covered accident. 11 NYCRR § 65.1-1. The coverage requires insureds to give notice of an accident within 30 days, and to submit a proof of claim within 45 days after medical services are performed. Id. The insurer's payment is "overdue" if it is not made within 30 days of its receipt of a proof of claim. 11 NYCRR § 65.3-8.

To expedite the process, payment may be made directly to medical providers (11 NYCRR § 65.3-11):

An insurer shall pay benefits ... directly to the applicant or, ... upon assignment by the applicant ..., shall pay benefits directly to providers of health care services ....

What Went Wrong

In April 2008, Ms. Luz Herrera was injured in an automobile accident. She received treatment from a number of providers, to whom she assigned her applicable benefits. The providers then mistakenly submitted bills in a total amount of over $19,000 to Ms. Herrera's employer-sponsored health plan, which was operated by Aetna, rather than to her automobile insurer, and the plan paid the bills.

In 2009, nearly a year after the services were provided, Aetna demanded reimbursement for those payments from Ms. Herrera's no-fault auto insurer, Hanover, but Hanover did not respond. In the meantime, Ms. Herrera had filed a personal injury action against the person she contended was responsible for her injuries, and Aetna filed a lien for reimbursement of its expenses from any future recovery in that action. Consequently, in January 2010, Ms. Herrera demanded reimbursement from Hanover for the bills paid by Aetna, and, when Hanover did not comply, she exercised her right to arbitrate under the policy. But the arbitrator ruled against her, for lack of standing, on the grounds that her providers' bills had already been paid, and the health plan's claim would remain contingent until she actually recovered against the tortfeasor.

In the midst of this litigation, Ms. Herrera's medical providers continued to treat her, and they continued to submit bills to Aetna, which paid an additional $23,500. Ms. Herrera ultimately executed a new assignment of all of her rights to Aetna, and Aetna filed an action against Hanover in the Bronx.

The Litigation

In the trial court, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. Hanover, the automobile insurer, argued that Aetna had no right to pursue assigned benefits directly against a no-fault carrier, because it was not a "provider[] of health care services" under § 65.3-11 of the no-fault regulations, and because it was not otherwise in privity with Hanover or a third-party beneficiary of Ms. Herrera's Hanover policy. Hanover also contended that it had not received the bills for Ms. Herrera's services within the time limits imposed by the no-fault law. The court agreed, granting summary judgment to the auto insurer on these grounds, and for the additional reason that

[t]here was no authority permitting a health insurer to bring a subrogation action against a no-fault insurer for sums the health insurer was contractually obligated to pay its insured.

An intermediate appellate court affirmed, and Aetna took the case to the Court of Appeals. At that level, Hanover's position received additional support from the American Insurance Association (AIA), as amicus curiae.

Many Arguments

In the high court, Aetna conceded it could not bill directly as a healthcare "provider," but it contended that the assignment it had received from Ms. Herrera allowed it to stand in her shoes as an "applicant." In a majority opinion, four judges rejected that argument. The majority found that Aetna could not assert a claim in Ms. Herrera's stead: the assignment it received was invalid, because it had been made only after Ms. Herrera had already assigned her rights to the medical providers.

But the majority also went further: it interpreted the language of § 65.3-11 to mean that the only persons to whom no-fault insurers may pay benefits directly are (i) insured "applicants" or (ii) the "providers" who receive their assignments:

[B]y its very language, the no-fault regulation permits only the insured – or providers of health care services by an assignment from the insured – to receive direct no-fault benefits.

The majority's opinion appears to mean, therefore, that even if Ms. Herrera had immediately assigned her no-fault benefits to Aetna, rather than to her providers; and even if Aetna had then presented bills to Hanover within the 45-day time-frame; Aetna would still not have been entitled to direct payment from the no-fault insurer. There is simply no room, it seems, for another third-party payor in the no-fault scheme—even if that payor entered the system unwittingly.

That result was too much for the lone dissenter, Judge Fahey, who concluded that the claim Aetna was asserting actually sounded in "equitable subrogation." Judge Fahey found that "[n]othing in the no-fault scheme precludes" such a claim:

Complex as the [no-fault] scheme may be, its mission includes consumer protection through a structure designed to limit costs and promptly resolve injury claims. Here, although [Ms.] Herrera has been harmed twice – through both the accident and the lien placed ... on any recovery she may have ... — [her no-fault insurer] has not been required to answer for its claims handling and coverage determination.

This argument was addressed in a lone concurrence by Judge Stein, which cited an informal opinion issued by New York's Insurance Department (now the Department of Financial Services) in 2008. The opinion dealt with a case in which an HMO treated a member whose no-fault insurer had denied benefits, and it stated that, under those circumstances, the HMO could not pursue an equitable subrogation claim against the insurer.

The Department's conclusion was based on the no-fault statute, which gives an "insurer"—i.e., a no-fault insurer—the right to assert a subrogation claim against a tortfeasor. N.Y. Ins. Law, § 5105(a). The Department construed the statute to mean that non-"insurer" payors (such as the HMO) had no subrogation rights. Rather, it found that an HMO could protect its interests by staying away from the no-fault system—specifically, by exercising its statutory right to exclude coverage for "any loss ... for which mandatory automobile no-fault benefits are ... recoverable." 11 NYCRR § 52-16(c). Judge Stein concluded:

Essentially, ... the Insurance Department has advised insurers that an HMO should refuse to pay for any treatment covered under no-fault because, under the no-fault scheme, the HMO will not be able to subrogate its recovery ... .

The concurrence also addressed the equities of this apparently harsh judgment. It noted, first, that equitable subrogation claims are usually directed at the party that caused an underlying injury—an "active wrongdoer." According to the concurrence,

equity does not dictate the outcome of who should pay for medical treatment under the no-fault scheme when the dispute is between two types of insurers ....

More importantly, Judge Stein found that Aetna's claim did not actually arise out of the injury to its insured:

The ... providers submitted their bills to the incorrect insurer, creating the false impression that Aetna's policy covered Herrera's treatment .... For its part, Aetna continued to pay those bills, without notifying the providers of this mistake, even after Aetna learned that they should have been submitted to Hanover. ... While purporting to sue as the subrogee of Herrera, as its insured, Aetna is actually suing to recover for its own losses due to incorrect billing, rather than Herrera's losses. That is not true subrogation.

Keep Out!

The AIA, as amicus, argued that the no-fault regulations "specifically identify the stakeholders essential to the no-fault system: the injured person, the health care provider and the no-fault insurance company." It argued that allowing other insurers to seek payment from no-fault carriers

would vitiate the regulatory requirements that encourage the efficient and prompt processing of claims: the submission of claims by the injured party within thirty days of a covered incident, and the submission of bills by medical providers within forty-five days of the dates services were rendered. ... The Superintendent of the New York Insurance Department has determined that meaningful verification of no-fault claims is necessary for the operation of the no-fault program[,] and that judgment should be respected.

None of the opinions in Aetna Health Plans cited these arguments, but the sentiments underlying them seem to have carried the day. In their own different ways, both the majority opinion and Judge Stein's concurrence read the no-fault statutes and regulations as a closed system that would be fatally disrupted by the introduction of additional players or modes of payment. Healthcare insurers have been clearly advised to protect their own interests by steering clear.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions