Key Takeaway
New Jersey arbitration statute requires application for Article 75 relief to compel arbitration in no-fault insurance disputes, as New York procedural law.
This article is part of our ongoing choice of law coverage, with 35 published articles analyzing choice of law 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.
St. Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 26271 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“Since the insurance policy at issue contains a provision that “he policy and any amendments and endorsements are to be interpreted pursuant to the laws of the state of New Jersey,” the substantive law of New Jersey applies (see Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 50 Misc 3d 107 ; Bay Med., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 145, 2013 NY Slip Op 52084 ). However, New York’s procedural laws control. In Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. and Bay Med., P.C., this court held that dispute resolution is not mandatory pursuant to NJSA § 39: 6A-5.1 (a), as implemented by NJAC § 11:3-5.1 (a) (see also New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. v Bergen Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., 410 NJ Super 270, 272-273 ), which provides that a dispute regarding the recovery of no-fault benefits may be submitted to dispute resolution upon the initiative of either party to the dispute. Similarly, the insurance policy in question provides that a matter may be submitted to dispute resolution “on the initiative of any party to the dispute.” However, the existence in a contract of an option to arbitrate in the event of a dispute is not a ground to dismiss the complaint in a court action based on that dispute. Rather, where one party commences a court action, the adverse party may seek to exercise the arbitration clause by moving to compel arbitration. If that motion is granted, the court stays the action pending arbitration (see CPLR 7503 ).”
This is the 5th time GEICO has challenged Plaintiff’s on the arbitration clause contained in the Motor Vehicle Code of the State of New Jersey (NJSA title 39), and they continue to fail to move to dismiss through making an Article 75 challenge. The result never changes,
Related Articles
- When NY and NJ Insurance Laws Collide: Understanding Cross-State Claims
- New Jersey law bars most of Plaintiff’s recovery in this PIP subrogation action
- Understanding New York No-Fault Insurance Claims and the Business Records Rule
- Pennsylvania Insurance Law in New York Courts: Navigating Choice of Law and the Innocent Third Party Doctrine
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
Choice of Law in New York Insurance & Injury Cases
When an accident or insurance dispute involves multiple states, New York courts must determine which state's law governs the claim. Choice-of-law analysis in New York uses an interest analysis approach for tort claims and a grouping-of-contacts test for contract-based insurance disputes. The choice between New York and another state's law can dramatically affect the outcome — particularly regarding no-fault thresholds, damage caps, and procedural requirements. These articles examine the analytical framework New York courts apply to resolve choice-of-law disputes.
35 published articles in Choice of law
Keep Reading
More Choice of law Analysis
Choice of law?
Court applies New York no-fault law over New Jersey law based on most significant relationship test, despite accident occurring in New Jersey.
Mar 17, 2021
Retroactive rescission
A Florida choice of law analysis leads to successful retroactive rescission, highlighting the importance of understanding different state laws in no-fault insurance cases.
Sep 25, 2020
A choice of law analysis – PA law controls
New York court applies Pennsylvania law to auto insurance dispute, finding PA's protection for innocent third parties prevents policy rescission against assignor.
Dec 19, 2013
Pa retroactive rescission
Analysis of Pennsylvania retroactive rescission law in NY courts, including Monroe v Omni and burden of proof requirements for insurers seeking policy rescission.
Jun 30, 2020
Pennsylvania Policy Rescission and the Innocent Third Party Doctrine in New York No-Fault Litigation
How New York courts apply Pennsylvania's innocent third party doctrine to bar retroactive rescission of auto policies in no-fault benefits litigation.
Feb 20, 2017
Policy Cancellation Under Pennsylvania Law Fails in a NY No-Fault Case: Act 68 Strict Compliance
New Way v Infinity: a Pennsylvania cancellation defense failed in NY because the carrier omitted the policy showing the mailing address. Act 68 explained.
Dec 28, 2015Was 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 choice of law 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.
