Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing arbitrations coverage, with 42 published articles analyzing arbitrations 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.
For attorneys handling no-fault insurance arbitrations, staying current with master arbitration decisions is crucial for effective case preparation and strategy development. The American Arbitration Association (AAA) historically published these important decisions on their website, providing valuable precedential guidance for practitioners navigating complex insurance disputes and threshold determinations.
In December 2013, this office noticed a concerning gap in AAA’s publication of master decisions and reached out directly to address the issue. The episode is worth preserving because it illustrates the outsized role these decisions play in the arbitration process — and what practitioners lose when the pipeline goes dark.
The Original Letter
Dear AAA,
Insofar as 60-70 percent of most defense firms’ inventories involve AAA arbitration matters, it is important for us (well me at least) to follow master decisions and keep a log of interesting ones. I started logging decisions of interest (I rarely share those on here) in late 2012. However, for some reason, AAA stopped posting these decisions as of October 14, 2013. I sent an email to AAA on their customer feedback form late last week, but have not gotten a response. I checked today and again there have not been any new decisions.
Could someone at AAA who reads this please look into this issue. For me, these decisions are invaluable in preparing proper master briefs, arguing certain threshold matters before AAA and deciding potential Article 75 candidates.
Thanks,
Jason
How Master Arbitration Works in New York No-Fault
Some background for readers outside the no-fault arbitration system. Under Insurance Law § 5106, a claimant dissatisfied with an insurer’s denial of first-party benefits may elect arbitration instead of litigation. Those arbitrations are administered by the AAA under the Department of Financial Services’ no-fault regulations, and the initial hearing is conducted by a no-fault arbitrator who issues a written award.
The losing party is not finished at that point. The regulations (11 NYCRR 65-4.10) create a second administrative tier: master arbitration. A master arbitrator reviews the lower award on a limited, appellate-style standard — the question is not whether the master would have decided the case differently, but whether the award was arbitrary and capricious, irrational, or incorrect as a matter of law, or whether the arbitrator exceeded his or her powers. Only after master arbitration is exhausted may a party seek judicial review, by way of a CPLR Article 75 proceeding to vacate or confirm the master award (and, where the regulation’s monetary threshold is met, a dissatisfied party may instead demand a plenary court trial de novo).
That structure explains why published master awards matter so much. The lower arbitration awards are voluminous and fact-bound; master awards are where the system generates something resembling doctrine. They tell practitioners which legal arguments survive review, how the recurring defenses — fee schedule, medical necessity, EUO and IME no-shows, timeliness — are being treated at the appellate tier, and which awards are realistic Article 75 candidates. A defense firm whose inventory is dominated by AAA matters cannot brief a master appeal intelligently without knowing what master arbitrators have been saying.
Why Publication Gaps Hurt Everyone
When AAA’s posting of master decisions stopped in October 2013, the immediate casualty was transparency. Without access to current awards, practitioners on both sides were left guessing at the prevailing standards — briefing master appeals blind, and making Article 75 decisions (which carry real filing costs and fee exposure) without the benefit of recent precedent. Arbitration only earns its keep as a faster, cheaper alternative to litigation if its appellate tier remains visible and reasonably predictable.
The episode also carries a broader lesson that remains true today: no-fault practitioners should maintain their own logs of significant master awards rather than relying solely on any single published source. Decisions of interest accumulate quickly, publication practices change without notice, and the practitioner with the better-organized award library has a concrete advantage in framing master briefs and threshold arguments.
Key Takeaway
Master arbitration decisions serve as essential reference tools for no-fault insurance attorneys, providing guidance on precedential rulings that can influence case strategy and threshold determinations. The absence of updated decisions can significantly impact practitioners’ ability to stay current with evolving arbitration standards and prepare effective arguments for their clients.
Related Resources
- Priority of payment and forced arbitration under the no-fault regulation — our cluster hub on no-fault arbitration’s reach
- An arbitrator’s order is not binding where the provider was not named in the underlying arbitration
- The reasonable hypothesis standard under Insurance Law 5105
- The firm’s Legal Encyclopedia of New York no-fault topics
- Our no-fault defense practice
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
No-Fault Arbitrations in New York
No-fault arbitration is the primary forum for resolving disputes between medical providers and insurers over claim denials. The arbitration process has its own procedural rules, evidentiary standards, and appeal mechanisms — including master arbitration and Article 75 judicial review. Understanding arbitration practice is essential for any attorney handling no-fault claims. These articles cover arbitration procedures, hearing strategies, award enforcement, and the grounds for challenging arbitration outcomes in court.
42 published articles in Arbitrations
Keep Reading
More Arbitrations Analysis
Forced Arbitration: Challenges in Discrimination Claims
Explores forced arbitration in discrimination claims, examining laws with the 2021 EFAA, impacting employee rights and employer policies.
Feb 11, 2025
Election to arbitrate
New York no-fault insurance arbitration ruling: once a provider elects arbitration for accident claims, they cannot switch forums even against different carriers.
Apr 27, 2020
“reasonable hypothesis” standard under Ins Law 5105
Court upholds arbitration award under Insurance Law 5105's "reasonable hypothesis" standard, confirming vehicle's commercial use met threshold requirements.
Feb 3, 2016
Roggio/Westchester-Lincoln
New York court ruling clarifies medical providers' independent arbitration rights and insurer EUO denial requirements in no-fault insurance cases.
Jul 17, 2012
Collateral Estoppel in No-Fault Arbitrations: Why the Fourth Department's Falzone Ruling Creates Dangerous Uncertainty
Fourth Department holds collateral estoppel may not apply between no-fault and SUM arbitrations in New York. Critical analysis of Falzone decision for Long Island claims.
Jul 9, 2009
Infants compromise order not needed to proceed in arbitration in assignee case
New York court rules that infant compromise orders aren't needed in no-fault arbitration when healthcare provider acts as assignee, not the infant patient as party.
Jun 3, 2018Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
1 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
How does no-fault arbitration work in New York?
No-fault arbitration is conducted under the American Arbitration Association's rules. The claimant (usually a medical provider) files a request for arbitration after the insurer denies a claim. An assigned arbitrator reviews written submissions from both sides — including medical records, denial letters, peer reviews, and legal arguments — and issues a written decision. Arbitration awards can be confirmed in court under CPLR Article 75, and either party can appeal to a master arbitrator. No-fault arbitration is generally faster and less expensive than litigation.
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 arbitrations 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.
