The Supreme Court properly concluded that the petitioner failed to meet its burden of proving that an insurance policy endorsement dated October 21, 2005, which purportedly reduced the limits applicable to the uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement of the relevant policy to the sums of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident, was properly mailed to the policy holder prior to the date of the subject accident. The underwriter who testified at the hearing failed to offer “evidence of an office [procedure] geared to insure the likelihood that [the endorsements are] always properly addressed and mailed” (Federal Ins. Co. v Kimbrough, 116 AD2d 692, 692; see Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828, 829-830; Matter of Transcontinental Ins. Co. v Gibbs, 34 AD3d 488; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d 547; Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Gamble, 250 AD2d 540; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Ramirez, 208 AD2d 828, 830; Sea Ins. Co. v Kopsky, 137 AD2d 804; Anzalone v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 92 AD2d 238; cf. Kaufmann v Leatherstocking Coop. Ins. Co., 52 AD3d 1010, 1012; Morales v Yaghoobian, 13 AD3d 424, 425; Matter of Metlife Auto & Home v Pennella, 10 AD3d 726).
Compare with Eagle Chiropractic, P.C. v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 129(A) (App. Term, 2nd, 2008):
Since an automobile insurance policy which contained the prior version of the Endorsement would have expired no later than in April 2003 (see Insurance Law § 3425 ), the automobile insurance policy applicable to the claims at issue in the instant case was required to contain the current Endorsement which sets forth the 45-day time limit for the submission of claims (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1 [b]; see S & M Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 130[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50693[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004], supra) and defendant need not prove that the instant automobile insurance policy contained such Endorsement.
and with Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 49 (App. Term, 2nd, 2008):
A review of the record indicates that defendant demonstrated that the insurance policy in effect when the EUOs were sought contained an endorsement authorizing such verification (cf. Capio Med., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 129[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50526[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]; Star Med. Servs. P.C. v Eagle Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 56 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]).
and with SZ Med. P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 9 Misc 3d 139(A) (App. Term, 1st, 2005):
Although plaintiffs’ claims were submitted after the April 5, 2002 effective date of the revised insurance regulations, the provisions of said regulations are not applicable to claims until new or renewed policies containing the revised endorsement are issued (see Elite Psychological Services, P.C. v Trumball Ins. Co., 2005 NY Slip Op 51427U [App Term 1st Dept]); Star Medical Services, P.C. v Eagle Insurance Company, 6 Misc 3d 56 ). Consequently, absent a showing that the subject policy contained a no-fault endorsement permitting EUOs, defendant cannot rely on the revised regulations to argue that plaintiffs vitiated coverage by failing to comply with a condition precedent.