Key Takeaway
The March 2016 Renelique decision left both no-fault motions denied: an address dispute raised a factual issue but did not prove materiality for dismissal.
This article is part of our ongoing material misrepresentation - procurement of insurance policy coverage, with 24 published articles analyzing material misrepresentation - procurement of insurance policy 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 could defeat the provider’s motion without winning its own. That is the result in Renelique v National Liability, 2016 NY Slip Op 50254(U): both summary-judgment motions remained denied. This was the Appellate Term, not the Court of Appeals.
Legal Update (September 2026): Alignment Chiropractic v Travelers (2020) expressly applies Fatmir’s underwriting-documentation test in a no-fault action; the March 2016 Renelique opinion did not create a handbook-free exception.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Two motions, different questions
National Liability established timely mailing of a denial alleging that the assignor gave a false residence address to obtain a lower premium. Its opposition papers also raised a triable issue about that address. The provider therefore could not obtain summary judgment. The court did not decide whether the provider had made its initial showing.
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 insurer still had to establish its own right to dismissal. On that record, it failed to show material misrepresentation as a matter of law. The Appellate Term modified the order on March 1, 2016, to deny the insurer’s cross-motion and otherwise affirmed.
A factual dispute can defeat a motion without resolving that dispute for the opponent. The result did not void the policy or establish that all no-fault benefits could be denied.
Read the later underwriting cases with this one
The November 2016 Renelique decision expressly cited Fatmir in rejecting the insurer’s materiality showing. Alignment later described the documentation needed to connect the false statement to refusal of the policy. Silence about a handbook in this earlier, short opinion is not a holding that procurement fraud and section 3105 use unrelated materiality tests.
Keep the address evidence, the denial record and the underwriting evidence identifiable when comparing these cases. They answer different questions on a motion.
Jason’s March 2016 question
This was Jason’s reading of a short decision that did not discuss an underwriting handbook. Later cases expressly applied Fatmir; the comment should not be used as a separate route around section 3105:
The question is what is necessary regarding the type of “material misrepresentations” that are necessary to demonstrate a fraudulent procurement defense. I also do not see any notion that the underwriting handbook has to be presented here, making this different than a 3105 misrepresentation.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the fraudulent procurement and material misrepresentation hub, then compare these records:
- Renelique (November 2016): materiality and competing motion burdens
- Compas (2016): separate claims, tolling and verification responses
- Alignment (2020): ownership, use and the underwriting record
- Veksler (2018): materiality without an assigned-risk exception
- Great Health Care (2014): a procurement defense lost to preclusion
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
Material Misrepresentation in Insurance Policy Procurement
An insurer may void a policy ab initio if the insured made a material misrepresentation during the application process. Under New York Insurance Law 3105, the misrepresentation must be material to the risk — meaning the insurer would not have issued the policy or would have charged a higher premium had it known the truth. In no-fault practice, misrepresentation defenses can eliminate coverage entirely. These articles analyze the legal standards, the burden of proof on the insurer, and the case law governing rescission based on misrepresentation.
24 published articles in Material misrepresentation - procurement of insurance policy
Keep Reading
More Material misrepresentation - procurement of insurance policy Analysis
Material Misrepresentation defense
Alignment Chiropractic v Travelers applied Fatmir to vehicle ownership and use. The insurer failed to prove it would have refused the policy.
Sep 25, 2020
Material Misrepresentation in Insurance Claims: New York Legal Guide 2024
Expert guide to material misrepresentation in insurance claims under NY law. Learn your rights, defenses, and legal options.
Jul 24, 2019
Insurance Law 3105 Does Not Apply to Personal Injury Policies: A No-Fault Defense Analysis
SS Medical found a false military-status statement but insufficient materiality proof. Section 3105 is not limited to property policies; rescission is separate.
Jul 21, 2015
The declaratory judgment failed to name everybody
New York court ruling on declaratory judgment privity in no-fault insurance cases involving assignee providers and material misrepresentation claims.
Mar 21, 2013
Material Misrepresentation Defense unsuccessful
Maxford rejected an insurer's materiality showing and reliance on a prior default against the assignor. The provider's claim remained set for a limited trial.
Jul 7, 2018
Fraudulent procurement has now been changed into a material misrepresentation defense
The November 2016 Renelique ruling applied Fatmir to a residence misrepresentation. Both parties failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment.
Nov 28, 2016Was 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 material misrepresentation - procurement of insurance policy 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.
