Key Takeaway
Rally Chiropractic v Nationwide case ruling on no-fault coverage denial due to assignor not regularly residing with insured under NY regulations.
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.
Rally Chiropractic, P.C. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50417(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)
Defendant proved that the Assignor did not “regularly reside” with the insured thus there was no coverage from Nationwide. The opinion is less than clear if there were any other sources of no-fault coverage in this case. However, since there is also a 45-day issue, I have to guess that there were issues determining where coverage existed, if it all.
“The proof submitted by both defendant and plaintiff established that plaintiff’s assignor was not an eligible injured person under the policy in issue (Insurance Department Regulations § 65-1.1 ) since she did not “regularly reside[]” with the insured at the time of the accident (Insurance Department Regulations § 65-1.1 ). Defendant further established that it had timely denied plaintiff’s claim (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 ) on this ground. In any event, even if defendant’s denial of claim form had been defective or untimely, the defense of lack of coverage is not subject to preclusion (Psychology & Massage Therapy Assoc., PLLC v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 140, 2006 NY Slip Op 51351 ; see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 201 ).”
(45-day rule issues also discussed)
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.
Related Articles
- MVAIC continues to dig its grave at the Appellate Division
- Can a Declaration of Non-Coverage that Arises from a Co-Defendant’s Default be Considered Collateral Estoppel Against the Appearing and Answering Defendant?
- The appellate division grants summary judgment since the loss was not an insured event – UPDATED
- Absence of a business record entry = no motor vehicle accident
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 decision, Insurance Department Regulation § 65-1.1 and related provisions governing resident relative coverage determinations may have been amended or clarified through regulatory updates. Practitioners should verify current regulatory language and any interpretive guidance regarding “regularly resides” standards, as well as confirm current procedural requirements for coverage denials in resident relative cases.
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
No need to file cancellation with DMV?
Global Liberty v Ho Suk Shin distinguishes replacing an insured vehicle from terminating a policy. Jason’s original 2020 commentary is preserved.
May 9, 2020
Cancellation of insurance policy
Court ruling highlights insurance companies' burden to prove proper DMV notification when canceling policies, affecting no-fault insurance defenses in New York.
Aug 24, 2015
2309(c) – dead for now (maybe?) and the out of state insurer issue
Analysis of CPLR 2309(c) certificate of conformity requirements for out-of-state affidavits in New York no-fault insurance litigation and recent court decisions.
Mar 5, 2014
Guidance on how to defeat a lack of causation motion regarding injury to a knee
Malloy reinstated a right-knee injury claim based on supported medical opinions. Read the 2010 causation ruling and its limits for no-fault practice.
Dec 22, 2010Was 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.
