In Presbyterian Hosp. in the City of New York v. Maryland Cas. Co., 90 N.Y.2d 274 [1997] the Court discussed the rationale for applying the potentially harsh remedy of preclusion against insurers in the context of no-fault insurance claims: "No-fault reform was enacted to provide prompt uncontested, first-party insurance benefits. That is part of the price paid to eliminate common-law contested lawsuits. Indeed, contrary to the insurer's assertions, preclusion of this type was an available remedy at common law, and if this important facet of the juridical rights and remedies among the various interested parties is to be deemed eliminated, it must be evident more plainly and expressly as this would be in derogation of a common-law protection. The tradeoff of the no-fault reform still allows carriers to contest ill-founded, illegitimate and fraudulent claims, but within a strict, short-leashed contestable period and process designed to avoid prejudice and red-tape dilatory practices" (90 N.Y.2d at 285, 660 N.Y.S.2d 536, 683 N.E.2d 1.)