A True Insurance Attorney Has Passed: Remembering Norman Dachs, No-Fault Master Arbitrator

Key Takeaways

• This post is a tribute to Norman Dachs, Esq., a pioneer of third-party personal injury practice who later served as a no-fault master arbitrator.
• His master arbitration decisions were marked by intellectual rigor — he pushed the bounds of the review standard rather than rubber-stamping lower awards.
• The author’s respect survived a fresh loss: Dachs had just reversed one of the author’s lower arbitration wins, sending the dispute to Supreme Court on a petition.
• The post argues the no-fault system needs more arbitrators of his caliber — engaged reviewers, not passive affirmers.

The Tribute

It is with sadness that I learned about the passing of Norman Dachs.

I never had the pleasure of meeting Norman Dachs, Esq. He was a pioneer in the third-party personal injury realm, but I did not get heavily involved in that area of work until I started my practice in 2010 and never knew him in that vain. Mr. Dachs became a master arbitrator a few years ago. My review of the hundreds of decisions he wrote showed a very intellectual viewpoint. There is no other master arbitrator who would push the bounds of Petrosky as Mr. Dachs. In fact, writing a brief to him was many times more intellectually thrilling than the rote Appellate Term, Second Department responses that I am stuck writing.

For purposes of full disclosure, I would note that I was cursing his name last week as he reversed a lower arbitration victory of mine, forcing a trip to Supreme Court on a Petition. I just filed the Petition today. While I disagreed with him, I appreciated his vigor and the fact that he was not a rubber stamp to the awards of the AAA arbitrators. We need more Norman Dachs’ in the no-fault system. A good hire on the part of DFS and a true attorney. I will miss Master Dachs.

Jason Tenenbaum

What a Master Arbitrator Does in the No-Fault System

For readers outside the no-fault bar, the role Mr. Dachs held deserves some explanation. Most first-party no-fault disputes between medical providers and insurance carriers in New York are resolved in arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association under the Department of Financial Services’ regulations. When a party loses before the AAA arbitrator, the regulation provides a built-in appellate layer: review by a master arbitrator under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10.

Master arbitration review is deliberately narrow. The master arbitrator does not retry the case or reweigh the medical evidence; the recognized grounds focus on whether the award was arbitrary, capricious, irrational, or incorrect as a matter of law. The “Petrosky” referenced in the tribute is the case law shorthand for the limits of that review — the line between correcting legal error, which a master arbitrator may do, and second-guessing factual findings, which he may not.

That narrowness is precisely why Mr. Dachs stood out. A master arbitrator who treats the review standard as a formality affirms everything and writes little. One who takes the standard seriously — who probes whether the lower award actually applied the law correctly — makes the second tier meaningful. The tribute’s point is that Dachs did the latter, hundreds of times over, and that briefing to him demanded a lawyer’s best work.

The Next Step: Article 75 Review in Supreme Court

The tribute also captures, in passing, what happens after a master arbitration award: the losing party’s remedy is a petition to Supreme Court under CPLR Article 75 to vacate or confirm the award. Judicial review at that stage is narrower still — courts ask whether the master arbitrator exceeded his power or whether the award lacks a rational basis, not whether the court would have decided the dispute differently.

That layered structure — AAA arbitrator, master arbitrator, Article 75 petition — is the procedural skeleton of New York no-fault dispute resolution. It is designed to be faster and cheaper than plenary litigation, and it works only as well as the people occupying each tier. The author’s willingness to file an Article 75 petition against a Dachs reversal, while simultaneously praising the man’s rigor, says something about both the system and the arbitrator.

Why This Tribute Still Resonates

More than a decade later, the core complaint embedded in this post has not aged: the difference between an engaged adjudicator and a rubber stamp is the difference between a dispute-resolution system that develops the law and one that merely clears dockets. Practitioners who appear regularly in no-fault arbitration — on either the provider or carrier side — know that a thoughtful master arbitrator disciplines the entire tier below: lower arbitrators write better awards when they know someone upstairs is actually reading them.

The same dynamic plays out in the courts, where issues like priority of payment and forced arbitration continue to shape where and how these disputes get heard. The forum changes; the need for rigorous, intellectually honest adjudicators does not.

Related Resources

• Priority of payment and no-force arbitration developments
• Understanding procedural timing rules under CPLR 3212
• The CPLR 3212(g) paradigm in no-fault practice
• Regulatory amendments and their impact on practitioners
• Reasonable excuse standards in default judgment cases
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law
• The firm’s Legal Encyclopedia
• No-Fault Defense practice

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this tribute was published in 2014, there have been significant changes to New York’s no-fault arbitration framework and master arbitrator procedures. The Department of Financial Services has implemented various procedural and substantive modifications to the arbitration process, and practitioners should verify current arbitration rules and master arbitrator authority under the existing regulatory structure.