Key Takeaway
New York no-fault law creates paradoxical situations where courts dismiss serious injury claims yet allow full damages under 90/180 day categories, highlighting systemic inconsistencies.
New York’s no-fault insurance system requires injured parties to meet specific thresholds before pursuing claims for pain and suffering damages. Under Insurance Law Section 5102(d), plaintiffs must demonstrate either a “permanent consequential limitation” or a “significant limitation” of a bodily function, or alternatively, that they were prevented from performing substantially all daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days following an accident (the “90/180 category”).
When courts analyze these threshold requirements, they sometimes reach seemingly contradictory conclusions that highlight the complexities within the no-fault framework. Defense attorneys who regularly handle personal injury cases often encounter situations where the legal reasoning appears to conflict with the underlying medical realities, particularly when examining objective signs of continuing disability.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
I am putting by Bodily Injury hat on this one. There are few issues in 5102(d) land that intrigue me as much as the newest prima facie jurisprudence.
For instance, is it logical for an appellate court to knock out the permanent consequential and significant limitation categories, find a triable issue of fact on 90/180 and then state the following: “We note that if plaintiff ultimately prevails on her 90/180-day claim, she will be ‘entitled to recover damages that justly and fairly [*2]compensate … her for all injuries proximately caused by the accident” (Rubin v SMS Taxi Corp., 71 AD3d 548, 549-550 ; see Delgado v Papert Tr., Inc., 93 AD3d 457 ).’”
Think about how ridiculous this sounds. A court says you have no permanent or significant injuries, yet allows a jury to award damages on all injuries under the non-permanent 90/180 threshold category? I know I am a defense attorney and I try these cases so perhaps I am biased. Still, does this make sense?
I think Article 51 of the Insurance Law has spawned a level and degree of insanity that can hardly be explained.
Key Takeaway
This case illustrates a fundamental inconsistency in New York’s no-fault system: courts can simultaneously find that a plaintiff lacks permanent or significant injuries while still permitting recovery for “all injuries” under the 90/180 day category. This paradox demonstrates how the threshold requirements can sometimes undermine their own logical foundation, creating opportunities for outcomes that seem to contradict the medical findings.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 analysis, New York courts have continued to refine the interpretation of Insurance Law Section 5102(d) threshold requirements, and there may have been significant developments in the jurisprudence surrounding 90/180 day claims and their relationship to permanent consequential limitation findings. Practitioners should verify current case law interpretations and any potential amendments to the no-fault threshold standards, as appellate decisions over the past decade may have clarified or modified the analytical framework discussed in this post.
