Key Takeaway
Court rules insurer cannot modify no-fault judgment after losing summary judgment motion - defendant's belated policy limit defense fails procedural requirements.
This article is part of our ongoing coverage coverage, with 154 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.
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 02379 (2d Dept. 2011)
“The plaintiff hospital, as assignee of Bartolo Reyes, was awarded judgment against the defendant in the principal sum of $416,039.42, in this action to recover no-fault medical benefits under a contract of insurance entered into between the plaintiff’s assignee and the defendant. The defendant thereafter moved to modify the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a), belatedly asserting that the judgment exceeded the coverage limit of the subject policy due, in part, to payments previously made under the policy to other health care providers. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to modify the judgment.”
“he defendant failed to demonstrate that the evidence offered in support of the motion, i.e., an affidavit of an employee setting forth the policy limits and the amount of benefits paid for alleged prior claims, “was not available at the time of the prejudgment proceedings” (Jonas v Jonas, 4 AD3d 336, 336; see Sicurelli v Sicurelli, 73 AD3d 735).
Moreover, although courts possess inherent discretionary power to grant relief from a judgment or order in the interest of justice, this “extraordinary relief” is not appropriate under the circumstances presented (Jakobleff v Jakobleff, 108 AD2d 725, 726-727; see Selinger v Selinger, 250 AD2d 752). The plaintiff previously moved for summary judgment on the complaint, seeking a certain amount of benefits, in accordance with the no-fault billing statement sent to the defendant, and [*2]this Court reversed the denial of that motion and granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045). Only after the plaintiff obtained, upon this Court’s order, a judgment from the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, representing, inter alia, the amount of benefits sought in the complaint, did the defendant raise the issue of exhaustion of the policy limits. Under these circumstances, modification of the judgment in the interest of justice is not warranted.”
I find it really nauseating that the Appellate Division allowed a judgment to stand that was $350,000 over the policy limits, because the insurance carrier failed to move for partial summary judgment on the basis that should the carrier lose its main motion, then its damages are limited to $50,000. I realize it is the better practice to cover every contingency in a protective summary judgment motion, but this is just out of control. I know Medicaid funding is less, the malpractice cap failed, hospitals are going under and there is no sympathy for the insurance carriers. Still, the rule of law, reason and logic should prevail.
Related Articles
- Understanding policy exhaustion and priority of payment requirements
- How policy exhaustion must align with priority of payment regimen
- Recent developments in policy exhaustion cases
- Challenging arbitration awards in coverage disputes
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 decision, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone multiple revisions, including updates to medical fee schedules, claims processing procedures, and policy limit notification requirements. Additionally, CPLR 5015 motion practice and standards for demonstrating newly discovered evidence may have evolved through subsequent case law and rule amendments. Practitioners should verify current provisions of the Insurance Law, no-fault regulations, and procedural rules when handling similar policy exhaustion and post-judgment relief matters.
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.
154 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
Causation defense rebuffed – notice the subtleties of this case
Court case highlights crucial distinction between reviewing MRI reports versus actual films when defending against causation claims in personal injury cases.
Apr 28, 2010
Another policy exhaustion case went nowhere
Another New York no-fault insurance case demonstrates that insurers must prove policy exhaustion with specific timing evidence to successfully defend coverage claims.
Nov 25, 2018Common 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?
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.
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.
