Skip to main content
Brutal loss on a coverage case
Preservation of defenses on NF-10

Brutal loss on a coverage case

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

Court rules State Farm's 15-day delay in sending disclaimer letters after completing investigation was unreasonable, resulting in waived coverage defenses.

This article is part of our ongoing preservation of defenses on nf-10 coverage, with 207 published articles analyzing preservation of defenses on nf-10 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.

Matter of Matter of AIU Ins. Co. v Veras, 2012 NY Slip Op 03116 (1st Dept. 2012)

“On June 4, 2005, respondent Veras and additional respondent Richard, who was driving a vehicle owned by additional respondent Wynder-Ortiz and insured by State Farm, were involved in an automobile accident. State Farm was not notified and did not learn of the accident from its insured. Nearly four years later, it learned of the accident from Veras, who served it with the judgment entered in his favor in the action he had commenced against Richard and Wynder-Ortiz. Although it completed its internal investigation and prepared letters of disclaimer within two weeks, State Farm waited another 15 days before sending out the letters. It was not error for the court to find this largely unexplained delay unreasonable (see Insurance Law § 3420; First Fin. Ins. Co. v Jetco Contr. Corp., 1 NY3d 64, 66 ; Travelers Ins. Co. v Volmar Constr. Co., 300 AD2d 40, 42-43 ; see also George Campbell Painting v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 92 AD3d 104 ).”

So, notice of the accident is received after 4 years.  A judgment is entered and served upon State Farm.  Then, a decision is made to deny within 2 weeks.  Then 15 days were not explained.  After this, a disclaimer was sent, and this was insufficient?

“We reject State Farm’s argument that the delay was due to its investigation of other possible grounds for disclaiming. State Farm’s witness testified that the investigation was completed in two weeks. In any event, however, “just as we would not permit the insured to delay giving the insurer notice of claim while investigating other possible sources of coverage, [*2]we should not permit the insurer to delay issuing a disclaimer on a known ground while investigating other possible grounds for avoiding liability” (George Campbell Painting, 92 AD3d at 115).”


Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 decision, Insurance Law § 3420 disclaimer requirements and the standards for “reasonable time” determinations may have been subject to regulatory amendments or evolving case law interpretations. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding notice timelines, investigation periods, and waiver standards, as courts may have refined the analysis of what constitutes reasonable delay in disclaimer situations.

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

Preservation of Defenses on the NF-10 Denial Form

The NF-10 denial of claim form is the insurer's primary vehicle for asserting defenses to a no-fault claim. Under New York regulations, defenses not raised on the NF-10 within the prescribed time period may be deemed waived. The specificity of the denial, the timeliness of its issuance, and the consequences of failing to properly preserve defenses on the NF-10 are heavily litigated issues. These articles analyze the regulatory requirements and court decisions governing defense preservation on no-fault denial forms.

207 published articles in Preservation of defenses on NF-10

Keep Reading

More Preservation of defenses on NF-10 Analysis

FAQ

How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself

Practical guide on how to talk to a judge in New York courts. Proper forms of address, courtroom behavior, and tips from Long Island attorney Jason Tenenbaum. Call 516-750-0595.

Feb 24, 2026
Evidence

CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation

NY CPLR 2106 amendment eliminates notarized affidavits and certificates of conformity. Learn how this changes litigation practice. Call 516-750-0595.

Feb 18, 2026
Directed Verdicts

Judgment as a matter of law due to opening statement

New York court case where plaintiff's attorney's opening statement admissions led to judgment as a matter of law against client for false arrest and malicious prosecution claims.

Sep 28, 2013
Procedural Issues

Understanding CPLR 5019(a) Limitations: Why Courts Cannot Modify Judgment Amounts Based on Substantive Reasons

Expert analysis of CPLR 5019(a) limitations in NY civil practice. Mount Sinai decision on judgment modifications from experienced Long Island attorney.

Feb 12, 2011
Pleading defects

Plead it or lose

Learn why proper pleading is critical in New York personal injury cases. Expert analysis of the Weaver decision and strategic guidance for Long Island and NYC attorneys.

Jan 5, 2010
EUO issues

EUO denial not vague or conclusory for not stating dates

Court rules EUO denial valid despite not specifying examination dates, rejecting plaintiff's argument that omission made denial vague or conclusory under New York no-fault law.

Apr 7, 2015
View all Preservation of defenses on NF-10 articles

Common Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an NF-10 form and why does it matter?

The NF-10 is the denial of claim form used by no-fault insurers. Under 11 NYCRR §65-3.8, the insurer must issue the NF-10 within 30 days of receiving proof of claim (or the EUO/IME). The defenses listed on the NF-10 are the only defenses the insurer can raise — any defense not preserved on the form is waived.

What happens if an insurer fails to timely issue an NF-10?

If the insurer does not issue a timely denial via the NF-10, it is precluded from asserting most defenses to the claim. This preclusion doctrine is strictly enforced in New York courts. The claim is then deemed overdue, and the insurer must pay with statutory interest unless it can demonstrate a valid basis for late denial.

Can an insurer raise defenses not listed on the NF-10?

Generally no. The NF-10 must specify the grounds for denial, and the insurer is limited to those grounds in subsequent litigation or arbitration. Certain defenses like lack of coverage or fraud may be raised independently through a declaratory judgment action, but standard claim defenses must be preserved on the NF-10.

What are common procedural defenses in New York no-fault litigation?

Common procedural defenses include untimely denial of claims (insurers must issue denials within 30 days under 11 NYCRR §65-3.8(c)), failure to properly schedule EUOs or IMEs, defective service of process, and failure to comply with verification request requirements. Procedural compliance is critical because courts strictly enforce these requirements, and a single procedural misstep by the insurer can result in the denial being overturned.

What is the CPLR and how does it affect my case?

The New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) is the primary procedural statute governing civil litigation in New York state courts. It covers everything from service of process (CPLR 308) and motion practice (CPLR 2214) to discovery (CPLR 3101-3140), statute of limitations (CPLR 213-214), and judgments. Understanding and complying with CPLR requirements is essential for successful litigation.

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 preservation of defenses on nf-10 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 (13)

Archived from the original blog discussion.

KL
Kurt Lundgren
Frankly, the decision puzzles me too JT. But it wasnt four years after the judgement, it was four years after the accident that that State Farm was notified. There must be more to this then stated in the decision. Nonetheless, my heart brakes and breaks for State Farm. Just glad to know “State Farm is there”.
DF
Dr. Freelove
The insurer has 15 days to disclose its defense here, yet in Unitrin, the insurer is entitled to fail to disclose its policy condition defense until an actual lawsuit is commenced? Under Unitrin, an insurer may secret a defense for years and still rely on it at trial. Under Unitrin, the insurer may fabricate a completely new defenses simply for purposes of trial, after years of relying on a completely different defense. LOL. No sympathy for the devil. State Farm gets plenty from this Court.
J
JT Author
It is interesting how the standards differ in third-party and first-party cases. Yet, in a third-party case (not this one due to the facts that were presented), plaintiff still has to prove something, other than the perfunctory mailing, CPLR 4518(a), and proof that the bill is overdue. Question: would the providers trade prima facie medical necessity for Unitrin? The answer should be no.
RZ
Ray Zuppa
I too am outraged by the mistreatment of my good neighbors by a Court of Law. It appears that if a case will not have larger implications court’s will still find against an insurer.
RZ
Ray Zuppa
There is no longer prima facie medical necessity in practice. I keep hearing about that Unitrin case. What’s that one about. Is that the App Term decision that holds that if the claimant was a day late in making her premium payment it is a coverage defense and even though the check was deposited by the insurance company and the policy was not cancelled the claimant’s claims are all denied.
MS
mitchell s. lustig
This is another example why Unitrin makes no sense and is a departure from the general rules of insurance law that denials based upon a breach of a condition precdent to coverage, as opposed to a lack of coverage defense, must be asserted in a timely manner and without delay.
A
Anonymous
Mitch I agree with u. I don’t think the first dept knew what it was doing when it decided that case it threw one big monkey wrench in Plaintiffs cases and the sad thing is I am getting overturned by some Master Arbitrators saying Westchester in the 2d Dept is not good law. It’s ridiculous law. Once there is a contract signed by the parties, the damn insurance companies should have to follow the regs and timely deny every proof of claim. The regs say it. The general counsel said it in an opinion letter the second dept said it. Zappine and Chubb say it. I hate that I have to prove to everyone that a denial is needed when a bill is received. So sick of it. SMFH
J
JT Author
That is why CPLR contains Article 75 and the Appellate Division is empowered to review Supreme Court determinations. You are seeking review of legal, as opposed to factual issues; so you will get a ruling on the merits since the review is based upon the less deferential Article 78 standard. Personally, I have gone to Supreme Court numerous times when AAA makes up their own rules to preclude the carriers from offering evidence. Sometimes I win, sometimes I do not. But, you have to try and give it your best shot. As long as you are not engaging in “Five Boro” frivolous appellate practice, nobody can ever legitimately chastise you. As for me, I foresee another three masters that I filed finding their way to the First Department next year. Point is, take a stab in the dark – you may very well win.
A
Anonymous
From what I hear it’s almost impossible to win Art 75. It has to be so egregious that it goest even make sense. I do t know if it’s worth the time and effort just to be thwarted. The Masters r SI out of control and if y complain to AAA and the master moron Bill Considine u get absolutely nowhere. U just don’t no. The masters give the appellant a second Arbitration and font do what they r supposed to do which is look to see if there is an error of law or the Arbitrator was capricious in their decision. I can’t stand it and feel like I am stuck unless I Art 75 which is a pain and the odds of winning r low. It’s very frustrating.
AK
Alan Klaus
BTW the last 2 rants r by me not anonymous
LR
Larry Rogak
This decision is no great departure from past rulings. No matter how late the notice is, the insurer has to disclaim on that ground right away. They’re not permitted to wait a bit and investigate. This puts insurers in a position where they have to disclaim at once and then investigate. They can change their position later if they decide the lateness was excusable, or they can add other bases for disclaiming once they discover them. It’s not good claims practice but this is what the courts imposed.
N
nycoolbreez
If the providers walk away from prima facie medical necessity for Unitrin would the carriers then have to prove non-cooperation viz a viz Thrasher?
DF
Dr. Freelove
Unitrin’s goose is cooked. Why would the plaintiff’s bar trade off the existing medical necessity burden of proof against a single case that no other appellate court agrees with, that attempts to rewrite Chubb, and that is consistently rejected at arbitration? Unitrin makes no sense and illustrates that the First Department has no clue about No-fault.

Legal Resources

Understanding New York Preservation of defenses on NF-10 Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how preservation of defenses on nf-10 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 preservation of defenses on nf-10 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