Skip to main content
From your perspective – not mine
Coverage

From your perspective – not mine

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

Court of Appeals clarifies that intentional act exclusions in auto insurance should be evaluated from the injured person's perspective, not the actor's.

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.

Court of Appeals Resolves Split on Intentional Act Exclusions in Auto Insurance

The New York Court of Appeals has provided crucial clarity on a contentious issue in automobile insurance law: when determining whether an intentional act exclusion applies, whose perspective matters? This landmark decision in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Langan resolves a split between appellate courts and establishes a uniform standard that protects injured parties seeking coverage under New York No-Fault Insurance Law.

Intentional act exclusions are common provisions in auto insurance policies that deny coverage for injuries or damages resulting from deliberate acts. However, these exclusions can create complex scenarios, particularly when an injured person seeks benefits but didn’t personally commit any intentional act. The question becomes: should courts focus on whether the person who caused the injury acted intentionally, or whether the person seeking benefits acted intentionally?

Prior to this decision, New York’s appellate courts were divided. The Second Department had ruled that the injured person’s perspective should control, but only for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage. This created uncertainty about how courts should handle similar situations involving Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/SUM/UIM) coverage.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Langan, 2011 NY Slip Op 02437 (2011)

It is Langan again. That bad dream that does not go away. Well this time, the Court of Appeals held that for both lines of first-party automobile coverage, PIP and UM/SUM/UIM, an intentional act should be looked at through the viewpoint of the injured person. If you remember, the Second Department limited that holding to PIP coverage. It is an interesting opinion.

Key Takeaway

The Court of Appeals has unified the approach to intentional act exclusions across all first-party auto insurance coverage. Whether dealing with PIP benefits or UM/SUM/UIM claims, courts must now evaluate intentional acts from the injured person’s perspective rather than the actor’s. This victim-friendly interpretation ensures that innocent parties aren’t denied coverage due to another person’s intentional conduct, providing greater protection for those seeking rightful compensation under their insurance policies.


Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and intentional act exclusion interpretations may have evolved through subsequent Court of Appeals decisions, regulatory amendments, or legislative changes. The standards for analyzing intentional act exclusions in PIP and UM/SUM coverage could have been refined or modified. Practitioners should verify current case law and insurance department regulations when advising clients on intentional act exclusions and coverage determinations.

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

Common Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

What are common coverage defenses in no-fault insurance?

Common coverage defenses include policy voidance due to material misrepresentation on the insurance application, lapse in coverage, the vehicle not being covered under the policy, staged accident allegations, and the applicability of policy exclusions. Coverage issues are often treated as conditions precedent, meaning the insurer bears the burden of proving the defense. Unlike medical necessity denials, coverage defenses go to whether any benefits are owed at all.

What happens if there's no valid insurance policy at the time of the accident?

If there is no valid no-fault policy covering the vehicle, the injured person can file a claim with MVAIC (Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation), which serves as a safety net for people injured in accidents involving uninsured vehicles. MVAIC provides the same basic economic loss benefits as a standard no-fault policy, but the application process has strict requirements and deadlines.

What is policy voidance in no-fault insurance?

Policy voidance occurs when an insurer declares that the insurance policy is void ab initio (from the beginning) due to material misrepresentation on the application — such as listing a false garaging address or failing to disclose drivers. Under Insurance Law §3105, the misrepresentation must be material to the risk assumed by the insurer. If the policy is voided, the insurer has no obligation to pay any claims, though the burden of proving the misrepresentation falls on the insurer.

How does priority of coverage work in New York no-fault?

Under 11 NYCRR §65-3.12, no-fault benefits are paid by the insurer of the vehicle the injured person occupied. For pedestrians and non-occupants, the claim is made against the insurer of the vehicle that struck them. If multiple vehicles are involved, regulations establish a hierarchy of coverage. If no coverage is available, the injured person can apply to MVAIC. These priority rules determine which insurer bears financial responsibility and are frequently litigated.

What is SUM coverage in New York?

Supplementary Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (SUM) coverage, governed by 11 NYCRR §60-2, provides additional protection when the at-fault driver has no insurance or insufficient coverage. SUM allows you to recover damages beyond basic no-fault benefits, up to your policy's SUM limits, when the at-fault driver's liability coverage is inadequate. SUM arbitration is mandatory and governed by the policy terms, and claims must be made within the applicable statute of limitations.

Was this article helpful?

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.

Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.

Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.

24+ years in practice 1,000+ appeals written 100K+ no-fault cases $100M+ recovered

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.

Jason Tenenbaum, Personal Injury Attorney serving Long Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum

Jason Tenenbaum is a personal injury attorney serving Long Island, Nassau & Suffolk Counties, and New York City. Admitted to practice in NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI, and Federal courts, Jason is one of the few attorneys who writes his own appeals and tries his own cases. Since 2002, he has authored over 2,353 articles on no-fault insurance law, personal injury, and employment law — a resource other attorneys rely on to stay current on New York appellate decisions.

Education
Syracuse University College of Law
Experience
24+ Years
Articles
2,353+ Published
Licensed In
7 States + Federal

Discussion

Comments (7)

Archived from the original blog discussion.

MS
Mitchell S. Lustig
Langan is very interestin, becaue the Court of Appeals added a footnote indicating that its ruling was only based upon the decedent’s own policy. I had read the Appellate Division decision in Langan as holding that any innocent occupant of a vehicle or pedestrain was entitled to no-fault benefits. When the Appellate Division stated in Langan that you have to look at the accident from the point of view of the insured, I understood the word insured to be mean any eligible EIP under the PIP Endorsement. I still think that is the intent of Langan but I am curious why the Court added that footnote and did not definitively state that the decedent in Lanagan could have received benefits under the policy of the striking vehicle, not only his own policy. Something to ponder.
LR
Larry Rogak
So according to this decision, if I intentionally run you down with my car, it is an accident from your point of view. However, if I run up to you and intentionally hit you with a baseball bat, that is not an accident from your point of view. This makes no sense, even though it does give innocent victims of vehicular assaults a source of compensation.
MS
mitchell s. lustig
It should be noted that in footnote 1 of its opinion in Langan, the Court of Appeals noted that its decision to award no-fault benefits to the decedent was only confined to an interpreation of the decedent’s own policy, not the policy of either the driver or vehicle that intentionally struck Langan while he was crossing the street. Plaintiff’s had read the decision of the Apellate Divison, Second Department in Langan as standing for the broad proposition that any innocent third party, not an active participant in the intentional act, whether an occupant of the vehicle or a pedestrian struck by the vehicle, was entitled to no-fault benefits. In other words, when the Appellate Division in Langan stated that we must look at the accident from the point of view of the “insured”, many argued that the Appellate Divison was, in effect, equating the word “insured” with any eligbile insured person under the policy, including occupants of the vehicle or pedestrians who did not have their own policies. I also concurred with that interpretion. Yet, in footnote 1 of its Opinion, the Court of Appeals went out of its way to state that its decision was only confined to the decedent’s own policy, perhaps suggesting that if the decedent did not have his own policy, he would not be able to collect no-fault benefits under the policy of the strking vehicle. Food for thought.
ML
mitchell lustig
Larry, like it or not that was the intent of Langan. However, footnote 1 in the opinion does raise an interesting point as to how broadly Langan should be stretched.
KL
Kurt Lundgren
The decision certainly does broaden the term “accident”. An insurance carrier must pay the doctor’s bills on a claim where the insured paid his premium, who was an innocent victim of a motor vehicle assault, and who died for his troubles. Imagine that. One would suppose that from the insured’s perspective he meant to get hit by that car! Mitch, I think you are right on with your insights regarding the Footnote. I just hope that you didnt give Larry Rogak any ideas about using baseball bats. I dont think PIP covers that.
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
People are literally dying for some insurance benefits in this state. Why do you purchase insurance — in the case of No Fault because you have to; another government give away to corporations. But really. You buy insurance for peace of mind. In this case the decedent had the ultimate peace of mind. Not a single worry. He’s dead. So what’s the beef about some money. The insurance company delivered the peace of mind.
RJ
Raymond J. Zuppa
“Lanagan” — it sounds like a Clint Eastwood or John Wayne movie. I could see the story synopsis — “Lanagan was a maverick cop who did things his own way until he was run down on a sidewalk by a negligent State Farm insured.” Or if Lanagan hit the guy who died: “Lanagan was a maverick cop who did things his own way — and that includes negligently running down a pedestrian on a sidewalk.”

Legal Resources

Understanding New York Coverage Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how coverage cases are litigated and resolved. The state's court system includes the Civil Court (for claims up to $25,000), the Supreme Court (the primary trial court for unlimited jurisdiction), the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts), the Appellate Division (divided into four Departments, with the Second Department covering Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and several upstate counties), and the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court). Each court has its own procedural requirements, local rules, and case-assignment practices that can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

For coverage matters on Long Island, cases are typically filed in Nassau County Supreme Court (at the courthouse in Mineola) or Suffolk County Supreme Court (in Riverhead). No-fault arbitrations are heard through the American Arbitration Association, which assigns arbitrators throughout the metropolitan area. Workers' compensation claims go to the Workers' Compensation Board, with hearings at district offices across the state. Understanding which forum is appropriate for your case — and the specific procedural rules that apply — is essential for a successful outcome.

The procedural landscape in New York also includes important timing requirements that can affect your case. Most civil actions are subject to statutes of limitations ranging from one year (for intentional torts and claims against municipalities) to six years (for contract actions). Personal injury cases generally have a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5), while medical malpractice claims must be filed within two and a half years under CPLR 214-a. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including 30-day filing requirements for applications and 45-day deadlines for provider claims. Understanding and complying with these deadlines is critical — missing a filing deadline can permanently bar your claim, regardless of how strong your case may be on the merits.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum regularly practices in all of these venues. His office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, NY 11746, is centrally located on Long Island, providing convenient access to courts and offices throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City. Whether you need representation in a no-fault arbitration, a personal injury trial, an employment discrimination hearing, or an appeal to the Appellate Division, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. brings $24+ years of real courtroom experience to your case. If you have questions about the legal issues discussed in this article, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, no-obligation consultation.

New York's substantive law also presents distinct challenges. In motor vehicle cases, the no-fault system under Insurance Law Article 51 provides first-party benefits regardless of fault, but limits the right to sue for non-economic damages unless the plaintiff establishes a "serious injury" under one of nine statutory categories. This threshold — codified at Insurance Law Section 5102(d) — requires medical evidence showing more than a minor or subjective injury, and courts have developed detailed standards for each category. Fractures must be documented through imaging studies. Claims of permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use require quantified range-of-motion testing with comparison to norms. The 90/180-day category demands proof that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of their usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

In employment discrimination cases, the legal standards vary depending on whether the claim arises under state or local law. The New York State Human Rights Law employs a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision. If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the stated reason is pretextual. The New York City Human Rights Law, by contrast, applies a broader standard, asking whether the plaintiff was treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic.

Free Consultation — No Upfront Fees

Injured on Long Island?
We Fight for What You Deserve.

Serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of New York City. You pay nothing unless we win.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of injured New Yorkers since 2002. With over 24 years of experience handling personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation cases, Jason Tenenbaum brings the legal knowledge and courtroom experience your case demands. Every consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay absolutely nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Available 24/7  ·  No fees unless you win  ·  Serving Long Island & NYC

Injured? Don't Wait.

Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Call Now Free Review