They did not act in good faith

Last reviewed: September 2026.

Historical note: This is a 2015 judicial review of a no-fault arbitration award, not a separate bad-faith damages ruling. CPLR 7511 supplies the statutory review grounds; the 2026 verification discussion addresses a different, later denial-timing dispute.

The good-faith observation in this headline came from the arbitrator. In Matter of Allstate v Westchester Medical Group, decided February 4, 2015, the Second Department upheld confirmation of a no-fault award because Allstate had not established grounds to vacate it. The court did not award separate damages for bad faith.

What the arbitration decided

A medical provider sought assigned no-fault benefits. Allstate maintained that additional verification remained outstanding and that it therefore had no duty to pay. The arbitrator found that the provider had complied with the requests and criticized Allstate’s conduct. A master arbitrator confirmed the award.

Allstate then asked the Supreme Court to vacate the master award under CPLR article 75. The Supreme Court denied that petition and confirmed the award; the Appellate Division affirmed. Keeping those stages in order matters. This was not an original summary-judgment motion asking the appellate court to decide which verification documents had been sent.

The published opinion explains that the award had evidentiary support and a rational basis and that Allstate failed to show a statutory ground for vacatur. Its outcome cannot be converted into a rule that any disagreement over verification establishes insurer bad faith.

Jason’s original account of the underlying dispute

Jason’s February 2015 note describes an underlying decision he had read:

I read the underlying decision.  The NF-2 was sought and the provider stated it was not in possession.  Respondent did not find this to be acceptable.  The claim was granted, master affirmed, Supreme Court confirmed and the Appellate Division affirmed.

The appellate opinion does not identify the NF-2 or reproduce that underlying decision. That detail remains attributed to Jason’s contemporaneous account, not presented as an independently verified appellate finding. The opinion itself establishes the compliance finding and the limited-review outcome.

The distinction also prevents a second mistake: an NF-2 is an application for no-fault benefits, not a denial form. The prescribed forms listed in 11 NYCRR 65-3.4 serve different functions. A dispute about possession of a prescribed form should not automatically be treated as a demand for ordinary additional documents.

Judicial review and master-arbitration review are different

CPLR 7511 specifies grounds for vacating or modifying an award. Disagreeing with the result is not itself one of them. In this case the court also examined whether the master award had evidentiary support and a rational basis.

A master arbitrator has a distinct review role. 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(a)(4) permits review for an error of law, while excluding procedural or factual errors from that particular ground. That is why a description of the review stage belongs beside any quotation about the court not revisiting an arbitrator’s legal conclusion.

The later Progressive/Elite decision illustrates the distinction: the Fourth Department addressed a master arbitrator’s correction of a legal error concerning reasonable justification for not supplying verification. It did not create a general right to withhold documents, and it should not be read as a fresh trial of every disputed mailing.

Why the request type matters now

The 120-day provisions in 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(o) and 65-3.8(b)(3) expressly exclude prescribed NF forms, medical examination requests and examination-under-oath requests. Those exclusions do not make the requests irrelevant; they mean this particular 120-day mechanism is not the rule to apply indiscriminately.

For additional verification within the provisions, the text recognizes production of material under the applicant’s control or possession, or written proof providing reasonable justification for noncompliance. The regulation also requires a warning in the insurer’s request. Neither an unsupported refusal nor the phrase “not in possession” automatically decides every case.

The 2026 Chapa ruling rejects a mandatory 150-day denial deadline. It does not transform the 2015 arbitration result into a rule that no denial is needed, nor does it erase the express exclusions for prescribed forms.

What to keep distinct in the record

A useful review separates the requested item, the response given, the arbitrator’s finding and the ground advanced for judicial relief. Jason’s historical note concerns the first two; the published appellate opinion primarily explains why the attack on the confirmed award failed.

If citing this case, identify the finding as the arbitrator’s and the appellate result as an affirmance of confirmation. That description preserves what made the original note interesting without overstating the court’s holding.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the verification requirements hub: Chapa, response evidence and denial timing. For the related historical decisions:

• Colonia: court motion practice and a delay letter, not arbitration review
• City Care: an express failure to provide requested verification
• Solution Bridge: a factual dispute under the 120-day provision
• Progressive/Elite in 2018: the historical reasonable-justification discussion

For review of a particular no-fault dispute, request a Free Case Review.