Key Takeaway
The November 2016 Renelique ruling applied Fatmir to a residence misrepresentation. Both parties failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment.
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.
Neither side won judgment in Renelique v National Liability, 2016 NY Slip Op 51615(U). The insurer failed to establish that the residence misrepresentation was material. The provider’s own affidavit was insufficient for its motion.
Still current (September 2026): Alignment Chiropractic v Travelers (2020) again applies Fatmir to procurement misrepresentation; the November Renelique decision’s documentary-proof analysis was not a new statutory amendment.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
What each side failed to establish
The insurer sought dismissal because the assignor allegedly misrepresented his place of residence when obtaining the policy. Applying Fatmir, the Appellate Term found that the insurer had not established materiality as a matter of law.
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.
That defect did not give the provider judgment. Its supporting affidavit failed to establish that the claim had not been timely denied, or that a timely denial was conclusory, vague or without legal merit. The court modified the order on November 1, 2016, to deny the insurer’s cross-motion and otherwise affirmed.
The name does not replace the proof
The opinion used the materiality standard for the alleged procurement misrepresentation. It did not announce that fraudulent procurement had ceased to exist or that every use of the phrase described a different defense.
Section 3105(b)(1) and (c) address the insurer’s response to the true facts and evidence of its practices for similar risks. That is the link an application discrepancy alone does not supply. The insurer and provider still must satisfy their respective motion burdens; a failure on one side does not prove the other side’s entire case.
Jason’s November 2016 reaction
Jason credited counsel with pressing the materiality issue. That attribution and the description of a defense changing names are commentary, not findings in the opinion:
It appears that Oleg Rybak has gotten his point across that the “fraudulent procurement” defense is really a material misrepresentation defense in disguise. This defense has to fit within the parameters of Ins Law 3105 and be supported with proof from a underwriting manual.
Fatmir gives underwriting manuals, bulletins and rules as examples of relevant documentation. The decision does not limit proof to a document called an underwriting manual.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the fraudulent procurement and material misrepresentation hub, then compare these records:
- Renelique (March 2016): a factual issue without entitlement to dismissal
- Compas (2016): separate claims, tolling and verification responses
- Alignment (2020): ownership, use and the underwriting record
- Veksler (2018): materiality without an assigned-risk exception
- Maxford (2018): materiality and a prior default order
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
Material Misrepresentation Under Florida Law: Ab Initio Rescission in a NY No-Fault Case
Universal Health upheld a Florida auto-policy rescission on notice and premium-return proof. The opinion did not decide a no-fault preclusion rule.
Mar 18, 2014
The spreadsheet was not in admissible form?
Total Family v Mercury: the 2010 spreadsheet-foundation dispute, Jason's original explanation, and the mixed verification, billing and discovery result.
Aug 19, 2010
Retroactive Rescission of Auto Insurance Policies: Georgia and New York Law on Material Misrepresentation
JCC Medical v Infinity: Georgia and New York both bar retroactive rescission of personal auto policies, defeating a choice-of-law misrepresentation defense.
Dec 29, 2016
The permissive use statute trumps the rental agreement
New York Appellate Term rules permissive use statute prevents rental companies from seeking indemnification from renters for accidents by unauthorized drivers.
Jun 2, 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.
