Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing coverage coverage, with 152 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:
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.
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.
Related Articles
- Proof insufficient to prove the accident was intentional
- Insurance Material Misrepresentations: When Preponderance Matters More Than Intent
- Understanding Staged Accident Allegations in New York Insurance Claims
- An intentional act is precluded if not raised in a timely denial
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
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.
152 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
Declaratory judgment action (again) moots the underlying Civil Court action
Court ruling demonstrates how declaratory judgment actions can effectively moot underlying Civil Court proceedings through res judicata doctrine in no-fault insurance disputes.
Mar 19, 2015
Absence of a business record entry = no motor vehicle accident
Expert analysis of Jesa Med. Supply v NYC Transit Authority and business records evidence. Learn how absent records affect personal injury cases in NY.
Feb 15, 2013
The Civil Court – in case you did not know – has limited declaratory judgment powers
New York Civil Court has limited declaratory judgment powers for insurance disputes, with jurisdiction restricted to cases where the underlying amount doesn't exceed $25,000.
Apr 21, 2010
Policy Exhaustion goes to Madison Avenue/Someone from the Insurance Defense side should be putting in Amicu
Ameriprise v Kensington Radiology: Court grants appeal on $50,000 policy exhaustion defense in NY no-fault insurance arbitration award case.
Aug 23, 2018Was 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.
