Key Takeaway
Analysis of Florida vs New York no-fault insurance laws, focusing on retroactive policy rescission differences and choice of law implications in cross-state accident cases.
This article is part of our ongoing choice of law coverage, with 195 published articles analyzing choice of law 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.
W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v Infinity Prop. & Cas. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 22142 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)
It was interesting to see a discussion on the nuances of Florida PIP law. It has been under such lately, especially as they seek to crack down on perceived abuses of the law. Putting aside the radical shift in Florida no-fault, an interesting discussion arose from the Appellate Term regarding retroactive cancellation of insurance policies.
(1) “Lawrence Sherman and Bird Waldon were involved in a motor vehicle accident in New York. Sherman, the driver, and Waldon, his passenger, were in a vehicle insured by defendant under a Florida automobile insurance policy issued to Sherman.”
(2) “Florida Statutes Annotated, title 37, § 627.409 permits the retroactive rescission of an insurance policy if there has been a material misrepresentation in an application for insurance, whereas New York prohibits such a retroactive rescission (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Singletary, 279 AD2d 56, 58 ; Matter of Insurance Co. of N. Am. v Kaplun, 274 AD2d 293, 297-298 ) but permits an insurer to deny benefits to a claimant who was a participant in the fraud”
(3) “In the instant case, defendant insurer seeks judgment as a matter of law, under Florida law, based upon its having validly rescinded the policy pursuant to Florida law, and not under the laws of New York, where it would have had the burden of establishing that the insured, Sherman, had fraudulently procured the policy.”
(4) “An insurer’s failure to rescind a motor vehicle policy in accordance with the statutory notice of cancellation procedures of Florida Statutes Annotated, title 37, § 627.728 does not preclude or abrogate the insurer’s ability to void the policy ab initio pursuant to Florida Statutes Annotated, title 37, § 627.409 (see United Auto. Ins. Co. v Salgado, 22 So 3d 594, 600-601 ). The insurer must, however, demonstrate that it gave notice of the rescission to the insured and that it returned or tendered all premiums paid within a reasonable time after the discovery of the grounds for avoiding the policy.”
The Assignee medical provider who takes an assignment from an assignor-insured who makes a material misrepresentation in the procurement under NY law may still have no-fault benefits disclaimed. My reading of this case is that under Florida law, all of the assignors will lose coverage, whether or not they are innocent. Contrariwise, under New York law, the insure must prove that the other assignors conspired or aided and abetted the insured in material the misrepresentations.
From a choice of law standpoint, FL law applies because that is where the policy was issued from.
Related Articles
- Policy rescission under Pennsylvania law with insufficient proof
- New York law protections against material misrepresentation in insurance procurement
- Material misrepresentation under Florida law
- Fraudulent procurement and preclusion issues
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post, Florida’s PIP laws have undergone significant legislative reforms, and New York’s Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 provisions regarding insurance rescission may have been amended through regulatory or statutory changes. Additionally, choice of law principles in cross-jurisdictional insurance disputes may have evolved through subsequent case law. Practitioners should verify current provisions in both Florida PIP statutes and New York insurance rescission laws before relying on the legal framework discussed in this post.
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
Choice of Law in New York Insurance & Injury Cases
When an accident or insurance dispute involves multiple states, New York courts must determine which state's law governs the claim. Choice-of-law analysis in New York uses an interest analysis approach for tort claims and a grouping-of-contacts test for contract-based insurance disputes. The choice between New York and another state's law can dramatically affect the outcome — particularly regarding no-fault thresholds, damage caps, and procedural requirements. These articles examine the analytical framework New York courts apply to resolve choice-of-law disputes.
195 published articles in Choice of law
Keep Reading
More Choice of law 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
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, 2018
SUM Coverage
Learn about SUM (Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist) coverage in NY. Essential protection when other drivers lack adequate insurance. Legal case analysis.
Dec 4, 2015
Punted.
Second Department punts on Unitrin issue in Westchester v. GEICO, noting coverage challenge improperly raised on appeal while awaiting clarity from other courts.
Jan 30, 2014
The Appellate Division grants an Article 75 petition and remands the matter back to AAA arbitration
Appellate Division grants Article 75 petition in MVAIC v Interboro Medical, remanding no-fault arbitration case back to AAA for coverage determination.
May 31, 2010Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How do New York courts decide which state's law applies?
New York follows an 'interest analysis' approach to choice-of-law questions, examining which jurisdiction has the greatest interest in having its law applied. In insurance and personal injury cases, relevant factors include where the accident occurred, where the policy was issued, where the insured resides, and where the insurer is domiciled. Choice-of-law issues frequently arise in cross-border accidents and when out-of-state insurance policies cover New York accidents.
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.
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 choice of law 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.
