Key Takeaway
Universal Health upheld a Florida auto-policy rescission on notice and premium-return proof. The opinion did not decide a no-fault preclusion rule.
This article is part of our ongoing coverage coverage, with 166 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.
The insurer proved a Florida rescission in Universal Health Chiropractic v Infinity, 2014 NY Slip Op 50350(U), and won dismissal. The court reviewed notice and premium-return evidence. It did not decide an untimely-denial dispute.
Historical note: Universal Health v Infinity, 2014 NY Slip Op 50350(U), enforced Florida rescission on its record; contrast Prompt Medical (2026), which applies timely-denial preclusion to procurement misrepresentation in a New York no-fault claim action.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
What supported dismissal
The insurer’s investigation found that the assignor did not live at the Florida address on the application and that the vehicle was not garaged there. Applying Florida law, the court reviewed evidence that the policy had been rescinded, notice had been given and all premiums had been returned or tendered within a reasonable time after discovery.
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.
The litigation specialist’s affidavit and accompanying documents established that showing. The provider did not raise a factual issue about the rescission’s validity. The February 28, 2014 decision therefore directed dismissal.
Keep the Florida result within its facts
The court relied on Florida Statutes §627.409 and Florida decisions governing the rescission steps. The Florida Senate’s published statute sets out alternatives involving fraud, materiality and what the insurer would have issued with truthful information. Those alternatives should not be silently replaced with New York’s statutory test.
Universal Health did not decide a dispute over a late denial or the position of an innocent claimant who had not made the misrepresentation. It also did not establish that the state printed on a policy always decides every choice-of-law question. A later file needs its own policy, rescission evidence and claimant analysis before this result can be applied.
Jason’s March 2014 reaction
‘No preclusion here’ was Jason’s comment, not language in the opinion. His following question about a different claimant was a hypothetical the court did not decide:
No preclusion here.
What would have happened had it not been the assignor who committed the material misrepresentation in the procurement? The general deemer statute would have probably been effective and carrier would have had to pay benefits.
New York’s Insurance Law §5107 addresses qualifying out-of-state policies when a covered vehicle is used in New York. Its terms and the claimant’s position need analysis; Jason’s hypothetical is not a holding that benefits must be paid.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the fraudulent procurement and material misrepresentation hub, then compare these records:
- Golden Age (2010): assignment revocation and an unproved cancellation
- Great Health Care (2014): a procurement defense lost to preclusion
- Renelique (March 2016): a factual issue without entitlement to dismissal
- Renelique (November 2016): materiality and competing motion burdens
- SS Medical (2015): a false application answer without materiality proof
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the firm with the policy, application and claim record.
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.
166 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
Mallela – or was it?
Court distinguishes between Mallela defense and over-billing claims in no-fault insurance case, ruling that billing fraud doesn't qualify for extended defense timeline.
Dec 18, 2018
Cancellation of insurance policy
Court ruling highlights insurance companies' burden to prove proper DMV notification when canceling policies, affecting no-fault insurance defenses in New York.
Aug 24, 2015
MVAIC should have sought the information through verification
MVAIC case establishes insurers must seek coverage information through verification before challenging qualified person status in NY no-fault claims
Feb 3, 2014
She really was not an EIP
Court rules plaintiff must provide sufficient information on NF-2 forms to establish insured status in no-fault claims, highlighting coverage determination requirements.
Sep 23, 2010Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
3 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
Can an insurer retroactively cancel an auto policy for misrepresentation in New York?
Universal Health concerned a Florida policy and applied Florida law. It does not authorize retroactive rescission of a New York automobile policy. The law governing the policy and the rights of the particular claimant must be examined separately.
What must a carrier do to rescind a policy under Florida Statutes § 627.409?
In Universal Health, the insurer proved the application misrepresentation, notice of rescission and return or tender of all premiums within a reasonable time after discovery. The court found the affidavit and documents sufficient on that record; section 627.409 alone does not supply every procedural requirement.
Does the no-fault preclusion rule bar a rescission defense raised in an untimely denial?
Universal Health did not decide an untimely-denial issue. Prompt Medical in 2026 confirms timely-denial preclusion for procurement misrepresentation in a New York no-fault claim action. A proven out-of-state rescission requires its own governing-law analysis.
Was 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.
