From your perspective - not mine - Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum

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.

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.

Filed under: Coverage Intentional loss

Comments (7)

Archived from the original blog discussion.

Mitchell S. Lustig Mar 31, 2011

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.

Larry Rogak Apr 1, 2011

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.

mitchell s. lustig Apr 1, 2011

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.

mitchell lustig Apr 1, 2011

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.

Kurt Lundgren Apr 1, 2011

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.

Raymond Zuppa Apr 1, 2011

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.

Raymond J. Zuppa Apr 4, 2011

“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.”

From your perspective – not mine

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

Key Takeaway

Jason Tenenbaum

Comments (7)

Explore Related Practice Areas

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

From your perspective – not mine

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

Key Takeaway

Related Articles

Jason Tenenbaum

Comments (7)

Explore Related Practice Areas

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

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