Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing coverage coverage, with 150 published articles analyzing coverage 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.
In New York no-fault insurance litigation, establishing which insurance carrier actually provided coverage is a fundamental threshold issue. When healthcare providers sue for unpaid benefits, they must ensure they’re targeting the correct insurer. A misstep in identifying the proper defendant can derail an entire case, as demonstrated in a recent Appellate Term decision that may signal a shift in how courts evaluate coverage defenses.
Traditionally, insurance companies seeking to prove they didn’t provide coverage have been required to submit affidavits from underwriters with specific knowledge of policy issuance. However, this requirement appears to be evolving, with courts potentially accepting testimony from other insurance professionals who can authenticate coverage details. This development has significant implications for both healthcare providers pursuing New York No-Fault Insurance Law claims and insurers defending against such actions.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Omni Indem. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51450(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“In support of its motion, defendant submitted affidavits of its litigation manager and the claims litigation manager of American Independent Insurance Company (AIIC) which sufficiently established defendant’s lack of coverage defense”
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.
“Notably, the AIIC claims litigation manager attested that his company had issued the policy in question. Consequently, defendant demonstrated that plaintiff had sued the wrong insurance carrier and that defendant was not the carrier which covered the present accident.”
On this case, the carrier looks to have relied on the affidavit of a claims representative who stated that the insurance carrier was insured the adverse vehicle. Usually, the courts have held that an underwriter’s affidavit was necessary to make a prima faice showing of lack of coverage. This case seems to represent a break from prior precedent.
Key Takeaway
This decision suggests courts may be more flexible in accepting coverage testimony from claims managers rather than requiring underwriter affidavits. For healthcare providers, this underscores the importance of thorough pre-litigation research to identify the correct insurance carrier, as coverage defense strategies may be easier for insurers to establish than previously expected.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and coverage identification requirements may have been modified through regulatory amendments or updated court precedents. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding acceptable forms of coverage authentication, underwriter affidavit requirements, and procedural standards for establishing proper insurance carrier defendants in no-fault litigation.
Related Articles
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
Insurance Coverage Issues in New York
Coverage disputes determine whether an insurance policy provides benefits for a particular claim. In the no-fault context, coverage questions involve policy inception, named insured status, vehicle registration requirements, priority of coverage among multiple insurers, and the applicability of exclusions. These articles examine how New York courts resolve coverage disputes, the burden of proof on coverage defenses, and the interplay between regulatory requirements and policy language.
150 published articles in Coverage
Keep Reading
More Coverage 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
No coverage due to lack of proof regarding Claimant's status as resident relative
Rally Chiropractic v Nationwide case ruling on no-fault coverage denial due to assignor not regularly residing with insured under NY regulations.
Mar 12, 2012
A person who parks a truck on the side of the road, exits it and directs traffic is not using or operating the truck
Understanding vehicle use and operation in New York auto insurance claims. Expert Long Island lawyers explain the Gallaher v Republic Franklin decision.
Feb 16, 2010
Triable issue of fact on EIP issue
Court denies summary judgment in no-fault case where insurer failed to prove assignor wasn't eligible injured person despite out-of-state accident location.
Apr 22, 2018
Staged Accident Proof at the Framed-Issue Hearing: Liberty Mutual v Young and the Stay of UM Arbitration
How New York courts decide staged accident claims at framed-issue hearings — Liberty Mutual v Young, circumstantial proof, and uninsured motorist coverage.
Feb 11, 2015Was 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 coverage 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.
