Key Takeaway
MVAIC faces setbacks at Appellate Division as courts consistently rule against its coverage defenses, requiring proof of lack-of-coverage claims in NY no-fault cases.
This article is part of our ongoing coverage coverage, with 151 published articles analyzing coverage issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v NYC East-West Acupuncture, P.C., 2010 NY Slip Op 07111 (1st Dept. 2010)
Sometimes, you win the battle but lose the war. The best instance of that paradox in no-fault practice involved the Appellate Division’s holding in Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667 (1st Dept. 2010), when that Court, after handing MVAIC a victory, stated the following: “We would add that the burden is on MVAIC to prove its lack-of-coverage defense.”
Then came Socrates Med. Health, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 28 Misc 3d 141(A)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2010), where the Appellate Term, First Department, held the following: “In opposition, defendant, which bore the burden of proving its lack of coverage defense, failed to raise a triable issue on this point, since it offered no competent evidence showing that the plaintiff’s assignor’s loss arose from the use or operation of an uninsured motor vehicle”.
Now, the saga continues with Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v NYC East-West Acupuncture, P.C.2010 NY Slip Op 07111 (1st Dept. 2010), where MVAIC was trying to prove a lack of coverage through averring that the Assignor resided in a household where Allstate provided coverage. Procedurally, MVAIC sought to adjourn the case in order to provide this evidence. The adjournment was denied and an award in Respondent’s favor was granted.
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
A common theme through all of these cases is that MVAIC is trying to get around certain claims handling issues through asserting the special “coverage defense” it has that no other insurance carrier enjoys. Why MVAIC does not consistently clear up these coverage issues through seeking timely verification requests is beyond me. Also, why doesn’t MVAIC submit certified insurance expansion reports?
In my opinion, it appears to me that the courts, especially in the First Department, are sending a message to MVAIC that they need to play by the rules that the rest of us on the defense bar are forced to abide by.
Related Articles
- MVAIC gets hit again at the Appellate Term, First Department
- The MVAIC blood letting continues
- She really was not an EIP
- No coverage due to lack of proof regarding Claimant’s status as resident relative
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post, MVAIC coverage determinations and burden of proof standards may have evolved through subsequent appellate decisions, regulatory amendments, or changes to Insurance Law Article 52. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding household exclusions, resident relative coverage, and evidentiary requirements for MVAIC lack-of-coverage defenses.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Insurance Coverage Issues in New York
Coverage disputes determine whether an insurance policy provides benefits for a particular claim. In the no-fault context, coverage questions involve policy inception, named insured status, vehicle registration requirements, priority of coverage among multiple insurers, and the applicability of exclusions. These articles examine how New York courts resolve coverage disputes, the burden of proof on coverage defenses, and the interplay between regulatory requirements and policy language.
151 published articles in Coverage
Keep Reading
More Coverage Analysis
IME no-show is a policy defense triggering the hourly attorney fee provision
Learn how IME no-show defenses trigger hourly attorney fee provisions in NY no-fault insurance. Court rules failure to attend IME is policy defense.
May 22, 2021
Contractual deemer
New York courts examine when out-of-state insurers can avoid no-fault coverage obligations through contractual deemer provisions and policy language analysis.
Apr 24, 2021
Contemporaneous medical records sufficient
Court ruling demonstrates how contemporaneous medical records can establish causation between accidents and injuries, with implications for no-fault insurance claims.
Dec 11, 2014
Use and Operation
Cividanes v City of New York case analysis examining "use and operation" requirements for no-fault coverage when plaintiff injured exiting bus into pothole.
Mar 1, 2012
District Court Found That a Detailed Affidavit Was Sufficient to Show That the Vehicle Was Not Involved in a Motor Vehicle Accident
Learn how a detailed affidavit successfully proved a vehicle was not involved in a motor vehicle accident in Nassau County District Court.
Jan 9, 2010
Was the Plaintiff the owner? Court says triable issue of fact.
Fourth Department ruling establishes triable issue of fact regarding vehicle ownership despite conflicting documentation and testimony in no-fault insurance case.
Dec 26, 2017Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a coverage matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
