Key Takeaway
Legal strategies for defending multiple no-fault insurance cases from the same assignor after Huntington v. Travelers decision, including special interrogatories tactics.
This article is part of our ongoing procedural issues coverage, with 195 published articles analyzing procedural issues 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.
Huntington Med. Plaza, P.C. v Travelers Indem. Company
This was previously discussed on here. Many of us believe this was a half baked decision.
Some claims manager wanted me to put this question out here. I am seeking comments. You represent an insurance carrier and Huntington Regional, OrthoCare, Station Medical or some other entity bombards you with many cases in different courts and through arbitration involving the same assignor, accident and types of service.
How do you efficiently defend these cases?
First, you can file a DJ action, join all of these actions and have one trial. That is the most efficient way to handle these case; yet, can be problematic at times due to internal issues involving assignment of files, etc., and Ins Law 5106 (when these cases are in arbitration) giving the Claimant the right to chose arbitration as the dispute resolution process.
Assume option number one is not practical and you need to take a “verdict” or something like that after a trial on Huntington Regional (or something similar), like Travelers did, knowing that many other cases are following behind.
The Court in Huntington/Travelers phrased the order at the bench trial (which was not given collateral estoppel effect) solely as a medical necessity issue, and the order probably read something like this: Defendant proved that further services lacked medical appropriateness and Plaintiff did not provide persuasive evidence as to the continued treatment’s medical appropriateness. Judgment to be entered for Defendant. I am just guessing what was in the order at the bench trial.
Here is my thought. Is it possible for an insurance carrier at a trial to demand special interrogatories be answered by the finder of fact. I think this is possible and this is what I am thinking:
Question #1: Did Defendant prove through a fair preponderance of the evidence that on (Date of IME), there was no further disability?
Answer this question “yes” or “no”.
Question #2: Did Defendant prove through a fair preponderance of the evidence that services following the IME were not medically necessary?
Answer this question “yes” or “no”.
(Only reach question #3 if 5 out of 6 jurors answered question #1 and/or question #2 in the affirmative. If both question #1 and question #2 are answered in the negative, then proceed to question #4)
(3) Did Plaintiff prove through a fair preponderance of the evidence that the services rendered after the IME dated (Date of IME) were medically necessary?
(Only reach question #4 if 5 out of 6 jurors answered question #3 in the affirmative)
(4) How much do you award Plaintiff in unpaid no-fault benefits?
Under this construct, a finding as to question number #1 in the affirmative and question number 3 in the negative would be collateral estoppel because a finder of fact has now found as a matter of fact that on a given date there was no further disability. This would more or less fall in line with Matin v. Geico and Lobel v. Allstate which gives collateral estoppel effect to judgments and awards finding that further benefits are inappropriate.
Answering #1 in the negative and number #2 in the affirmative, with #3 in the negative would still be a win for the carrier, but allow the rest of the medical providers’ cases to remain active since there is no affirmative finding that a disability ceased and the “wax and wane” of the pain may play out on another day.
Of course answering question #3 in the affirmative or answering questions #1 and #2 in the negative is a win for the provider. This would be collateral estoppel against the provider.
Related Articles
- Understanding collateral estoppel in no-fault insurance cases
- How supplemental affirmations in DJ cases relate to res judicata
- Collateral estoppel principles in insurance disputes
- When declarations of non-coverage have res judicata effect
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, there have been potential amendments to Insurance Law Section 5106 regarding arbitration procedures and declaratory judgment actions in no-fault cases. Additionally, court decisions may have further refined the application of res judicata principles in multi-entity provider litigation scenarios. Practitioners should verify current statutory provisions and recent case law developments when strategizing defense approaches for similar provider litigation patterns.
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
Procedural Issues in New York Litigation
New York civil procedure governs every stage of litigation — from pleading requirements and service of process to motion practice, discovery deadlines, and trial procedures. The CPLR creates strict procedural rules that can make or break a case regardless of the underlying merits. These articles examine the procedural pitfalls, timing requirements, and strategic considerations that practitioners face in New York state courts, with a particular focus on no-fault insurance and personal injury practice.
195 published articles in Procedural Issues
Keep Reading
More Procedural Issues Analysis
How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself
Practical guide on how to talk to a judge in New York courts. Proper forms of address, courtroom behavior, and tips from Long Island attorney Jason Tenenbaum. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 24, 2026CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
NY CPLR 2106 amendment eliminates notarized affidavits and certificates of conformity. Learn how this changes litigation practice. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 18, 2026E-filing and its perils
New York court ruling on e-filing deadlines and venue change motions. Learn how electronic filing requirements affect procedural deadlines in personal injury cases.
Apr 1, 2017Understanding Declaratory Judgment Actions and Res Judicata in New York No-Fault Cases
Learn how insurance companies use declaratory judgment actions to avoid paying no-fault benefits. Expert legal analysis from Jason Tenenbaum. Call 516-750-0595.
Jan 30, 2014A Case and Reserves That Will Remain in Limbo: Understanding New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Learn how New York court calendar restoration rules create legal limbo for personal injury cases, keeping insurance reserves tied up indefinitely in Long Island and NYC.
Feb 3, 2012Read the stipulation….
Learn about summary jury trials and legal stipulations in NY personal injury cases. Experienced Long Island attorneys explain the Grochowski v Fudella decision. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 16, 2010Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What are common procedural defenses in New York no-fault litigation?
Common procedural defenses include untimely denial of claims (insurers must issue denials within 30 days under 11 NYCRR §65-3.8(c)), failure to properly schedule EUOs or IMEs, defective service of process, and failure to comply with verification request requirements. Procedural compliance is critical because courts strictly enforce these requirements, and a single procedural misstep by the insurer can result in the denial being overturned.
What is the CPLR and how does it affect my case?
The New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) is the primary procedural statute governing civil litigation in New York state courts. It covers everything from service of process (CPLR 308) and motion practice (CPLR 2214) to discovery (CPLR 3101-3140), statute of limitations (CPLR 213-214), and judgments. Understanding and complying with CPLR requirements is essential for successful litigation.
What is the 30-day rule for no-fault claim denials?
Under 11 NYCRR §65-3.8(c), an insurer must pay or deny a no-fault claim within 30 calendar days of receiving proof of claim — or within 30 days of receiving requested verification. Failure to issue a timely denial precludes the insurer from asserting most defenses, including lack of medical necessity. This 30-day rule is strictly enforced by New York courts and is a critical defense for providers and claimants.
How does improper service of process affect a no-fault lawsuit?
Improper service under CPLR 308 can result in dismissal of a case for lack of personal jurisdiction. In no-fault collection actions, proper service on insurers typically requires serving the Superintendent of Financial Services under Insurance Law §1212. If service is defective, the defendant can move to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8), and any default judgment obtained on defective service may be vacated.
What is a condition precedent in no-fault insurance?
A condition precedent is a requirement that must be satisfied before a party's obligation arises. In no-fault practice, claimant conditions precedent include timely filing claims, appearing for EUOs and IMEs, and responding to verification requests. Insurer conditions precedent include timely denying claims and properly scheduling examinations. Failure to satisfy a condition precedent can be dispositive — an untimely denial waives the insurer's right to contest the claim.
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 procedural issues 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.