Key Takeaway
Analysis of B&R Consol. v Zurich case on suing TPAs vs insurance carriers, agency relationships, and vicarious liability under NY Insurance Law § 3420(b).
This article is part of our ongoing standing coverage, with 30 published articles analyzing standing 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.
B&R Consol., LLC v Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 06287 (2d Dept. 2014)
“The defendants’ contention that Zurich is not a proper party to this action under Insurance Law § 3420(b) because it did not issue the subject policy to Powell is without merit. Although the defendants made a prima facie showing that Zurich did not issue the subject policy by submitting a copy of the policy’s declaration page, which stated that the issuing company was American Guarantee, B & R established in opposition to the defendants’ motion and in support of its cross motion that an apparent agency relationship existed between Zurich and American Guarantee which extended potential vicarious liability to Zurich (see generally Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231). In addition to the presence of Zurich’s logo on documents created and distributed by American Guarantee, B & R demonstrated that Zurich’s claims counsel was assigned to handle Powell’s case, that the assigned counsel was required to follow Zurich’s guidelines and to submit bills to Zurich, and that Powell was contacted by Zurich’s Customer Care Center regarding the claim and was directed to file his claim on Zurich’s website (see Fletcher v Atex, Inc., 68 F3d 1451, 1461-1462 ). This evidence of Zurich’s direct participation in the administration of Powell’s claim is sufficient to establish, prima facie, that an agency relationship existed between Zurich and American Guarantee such that Zurich may be held liable to B & R (see In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 375 F Supp 2d 278, 295 ). In opposition to B & R’s cross motion, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.”
Admittedly, this is an issue that never really concerned me personally. I used to like watching a certain plaintiff attorney who has cluttered the Appellate Term with senseless appeals lose cases where he sued the TPA. But the joy turned to anger when an insurance carrier called me on one of my Article 75 UM Petitions, demanded I discontinue against him because I sought to join a TPA as a proposed additional respondent and then demanded “costs” because I would not withdraw that branch of my Petition.
Alas, I will now have the last laugh 🙂
Related Articles
- Motion seeking leave to amend the answer to seek affirmative defense of lack of standing is proper
- Understanding Legal Standing in New York: A Comprehensive Guide for Long Island and NYC Residents
- Standing – the Defense Applied Outside the No-Fault Arena
- Assignments and business records – a deadly combination
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post was published, there may have been developments in case law regarding apparent agency relationships between insurance carriers and third-party administrators, as well as potential amendments to Insurance Law § 3420 governing standing requirements in no-fault actions. Practitioners should verify current judicial interpretations of vicarious liability standards and review any regulatory updates that may affect TPA liability determinations.
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
Standing Requirements in New York Litigation
Standing — the legal right to bring a claim — must be established at the outset of any litigation. In no-fault practice, standing issues frequently involve the validity of assignments of benefits, the corporate status of medical providers, and the capacity of parties to sue or be sued. These articles examine how New York courts analyze standing challenges and the documentary proof required to establish or contest a party's right to maintain an action.
30 published articles in Standing
Keep Reading
More Standing Analysis
Standing (favorite statutes)
New York's RPAPL 1302-a prevents homeowners from waiving standing defenses in foreclosure cases, even if not raised initially—a game-changing protection for defendants.
Mar 22, 2021Standing (Stacey Kapeleris)
Court ruling on standing in no-fault insurance claims, assignment of benefits, and injured person's right to retake possession of medical bills.
May 9, 2020Unpreserved and without merit
New York court rules on assignment of benefits standing requirements in no-fault insurance case, discussing "on file" statements and claim form requirements.
Dec 23, 2014Standing in a direct first party case is waivable
Court rules standing defense waivable in no-fault insurance cases when not properly raised in answer or pre-answer motion, emphasizing proper pleading procedures.
Dec 27, 2010on file"
Learn about NY signature on file requirements for assignment of benefits forms. Expert analysis of verification procedures and no-fault insurance law.
Nov 16, 2009It is a two way street
Complex analysis of insurance priority coverage rules and the two-way street principle in no-fault vs workers compensation cases, examining Westchester Medical Center decision...
Apr 10, 2009Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What does "standing" mean in a no-fault insurance case?
Standing refers to a party's legal right to bring a claim. In no-fault litigation, the medical provider must demonstrate a valid assignment of benefits from the patient to have standing to sue the insurer directly. Without a proper assignment, the provider lacks standing and the case may be dismissed.
How do assignment of benefits issues affect standing?
A medical provider typically obtains standing to pursue no-fault benefits through an assignment of benefits signed by the injured person. If the assignment is defective, incomplete, or missing, the insurer can challenge the provider's standing. Courts scrutinize assignment forms carefully, and defects can be fatal to the claim.
Can standing be raised at any point in litigation?
Yes. Standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any stage. If a party lacks standing, the court must dismiss the action regardless of the merits. In no-fault cases, insurers frequently challenge provider standing through summary judgment motions.
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 standing 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.