Key Takeaway
Understanding how Florida law applies to New York no-fault insurance disputes. Expert legal analysis from Long Island insurance attorneys. Call (516) 750-0595.
This article is part of our ongoing choice of law coverage, with 35 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.
Understanding Florida Choice of Law in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases: Lessons from Long Island
When dealing with complex insurance disputes across state lines, Long Island and New York City residents often find themselves navigating the intricate world of choice of law determinations. The intersection of Florida insurance law with New York no-fault requirements creates particularly challenging scenarios for both attorneys and claimants throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and the five boroughs of New York City.
The automotive insurance landscape in the greater New York metropolitan area is complicated enough without adding multi-state jurisdictional questions. However, as our region continues to see residents with ties to Florida—whether through seasonal residences, business interests, or family connections—these cross-jurisdictional insurance disputes are becoming increasingly common.
The Craigg Decision: A Landmark Choice of Law Case
Craigg v Infinity Select Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 23014 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
Who would have thought that some of the most interesting choice of law cases would come from no-fault litigation at the Appellate Term? This is a wild one, not so much as to how the grouping of factor test came about but because of the outcome that the court reached when the grouping of factors was applied:
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.
Case Background and Procedural History
Facts
“defendant, a Florida insurer, had issued letters rescinding plaintiff’s assignor’s insurance policy ab initio on the ground that material misrepresentations had been made during the application process; and that defendant had refunded the assignor’s premiums. The parties’ attorneys further stipulated to the admission into evidence of plaintiff’s claim form, defendant’s rescission letter, the policy application, and the insurance policy. Finally, the parties agreed that the sole issue for the Civil Court to decide was “whether or not Defendant has to establish the reason for rescinding its policy.” After trial, the Civil Court found for plaintiff, holding that New York law applied and that defendant was required, but failed, to present evidence in support of the underlying basis for its rescission of the policy. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been take”
The Court’s Analysis and Conclusions
Conclusion of Law #1:
“Florida law applied since Florida had the most significant contacts with the contracting party and the contract”
Conclusion of Law #2:
Where, as here, an insurer is not seeking a judicial decree of rescission in the action, but, rather, is seeking to establish that the policy had, in fact, been retroactively rescinded to a time prior to the commencement of the action, the insurer must simply demonstrate that it complied with the Florida statute by giving the requisite 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
Understanding Choice of Law in Multi-State Insurance Disputes
For Long Island and New York City residents, this case illustrates the critical importance of understanding how courts determine which state’s law applies when insurance policies cross state boundaries. The Craigg decision demonstrates that even when a case is litigated in New York courts, Florida law may govern the substantive legal issues.
Call (516) 750-0595 today for a consultation about your insurance dispute. Don’t let complex jurisdictional issues prevent you from getting the coverage and compensation you deserve.
Related Articles
- Pennsylvania Insurance Law in New York Courts: Navigating Choice of Law and the Innocent Third Party Doctrine
- Understanding New York No-Fault Insurance Claims and the Business Records Rule
- Understanding Choice of Law in Multi-State Personal Injury Cases
- When NY and NJ Insurance Laws Collide: Understanding Cross-State Claims
- A primer on Florida Law
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.
35 published articles in Choice of law
Keep Reading
More Choice of law Analysis
Choice of law?
Court applies New York no-fault law over New Jersey law based on most significant relationship test, despite accident occurring in New Jersey.
Mar 17, 2021
Retroactive rescission
A Florida choice of law analysis leads to successful retroactive rescission, highlighting the importance of understanding different state laws in no-fault insurance cases.
Sep 25, 2020
Understanding New York No-Fault Insurance Claims and the Business Records Rule
Insurance companies try technical defenses to deny NY no-fault benefits. Learn how business records rule & choice of law protects your claim. Call 516-750-0595
Dec 18, 2018
Massachusetts law applies
Massachusetts law governs no-fault insurance claims with lower PIP limits and health insurance offset provisions, creating expedient claim resolution strategies.
Jul 18, 2016
Policy Rescission Under Pennsylvania Law: Proving the Assignor Was Not an Innocent Third Party
Quality Psychological v Infinity: rescission under Pennsylvania law fails where the insurer cannot prove the assignor was not an innocent third party.
May 4, 2015
New Jersey law bars most of Plaintiff's recovery in this PIP subrogation action
New Jersey law significantly limited subrogation recovery in this PIP case involving cross-border accident, workers' compensation, and no-fault benefits under choice of law...
Jun 17, 2011Was 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 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.
