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 2 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 208 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, 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).”

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.


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.

208 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

Address the judge as 'Your Honor,' stand when you speak, wait to be recognized, and keep answers short and honest. A Long Island trial lawyer explains.

Feb 24, 2026
Evidence

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

New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.

Feb 18, 2026
Business records

Intersection between collateral source hearing and no-fault

Learn how collateral source hearings intersect with no-fault insurance in New York personal injury cases, including evidentiary requirements and Workers'

May 11, 2017
Procedural Issues

Existence of insurance coverage does not defeat summary judgment motion

New York court ruling confirms insurance coverage existence doesn't defeat summary judgment motions in medical debt cases, establishing patient liability principles.

Feb 11, 2014
Judgments

CCA 1401 – again

Court clarifies proper judgment preparation procedures under CCA 1401, emphasizing that attorneys, not court clerks, should prepare judgments except in specific circumstances.

Aug 18, 2011
Discovery

Appellate Term Holds CPLR 3212(f) Relief Is Inappropriate Under Three Separate Circumstances

Analysis of Appellate Term decision limiting CPLR 3212(f) relief in three circumstances. Essential guidance for NY civil practice and discovery strategy.

Feb 25, 2010
View all Preservation of defenses on NF-10 articles

Was 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 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

Reviewed & Verified By

Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.

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.

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 Review Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Free Consultation Free Case Review