Jimenez v. The Hartford

Background

Domingo R. Jiminez sued The Hartford, Hartford Insurance Company, and Trumbull Insurance Company under Section 5102 of the New York Insurance Law after his automobile was struck on April 10, 2018. The opinion states that the defendants insured the vehicle that struck Jiminez’s automobile and that the driver was protected by diplomatic civil immunity under the Vienna Convention.

State Farm insured Jiminez’s automobile and provided additional personal injury protection coverage. It paid $61,116.98 in medical expenses related to the accident between June 26, 2018, and October 12, 2020. State Farm separately filed a state-court subrogation action seeking to recover that amount from the driver and the Permanent Mission of Ghana to the United Nations. Those defendants moved to dismiss the state case based on diplomatic immunity.

State Farm later asked to intervene in Jiminez’s federal case as a second plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. It sought intervention as of right or, alternatively, permissive intervention. Jiminez and the defendants opposed the motion. The federal court had stayed discovery while deciding the motion.

Timeliness and statute of limitations

The court held that State Farm’s proposed claim was subject to New York’s three-year statute of limitations under Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 214. Relying on the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Stein, the court ruled that the limitations period for an insurer’s claim to recover additional personal injury protection benefits begins on the date of the accident, not when the insurer first pays benefits.

The court rejected State Farm’s argument that its claim was a statutory loss-transfer claim, for which the limitations period might begin when the first payment was made. The court distinguished cases involving basic no-fault or personal injury protection benefits and concluded that claims for additional personal injury protection benefits are traditional subrogation claims. Because the accident occurred on April 10, 2018, the court concluded that the three-year limitations period expired on April 10, 2021.

Relation back

State Farm argued that its proposed federal intervention could relate back to its March 16, 2021 state-court subrogation action. Relation back is a rule that can treat a later pleading as filed on the date of an earlier pleading when specified conditions are met. The court explained that both the federal rule and New York’s rule generally address correcting a pleading in the same action and before the same court.

The court ruled that neither relation-back doctrine could connect State Farm’s proposed federal claim to its earlier state-court action against different defendants. It found that State Farm’s proposed use of the doctrines went beyond correcting a pleading error in the same case. The court also considered whether State Farm could relate back to Jiminez’s timely federal complaint and concluded that this would prejudice Jiminez because he did not receive the required notice of State Farm’s proposed intervention.

Disposition

The court concluded that State Farm’s motion was time-barred and that the relation-back doctrines did not apply. It DENIED State Farm’s motion to intervene as a second plaintiff for untimeliness and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 32. The opinion did not decide the merits of Jiminez’s underlying insurance claim.