Key Takeaway
Georgia and New York laws both prohibit retroactive rescission of auto insurance policies despite material misrepresentations in procurement applications.
This article is part of our ongoing choice of law coverage, with 56 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.
JCC Med., P.C. v Infinity Group, 2016 NY Slip Op 26439 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
(1) It is uncontroverted that defendant had issued a Georgia automobile insurance policy to the brother of plaintiff’s assignor, “effective from August 28, 2010 through August 28, 2011,” who had made various representations to defendant in his insurance application, including that he resided in Georgia, that the insured vehicle was garaged in Georgia, and that the assignor was an adult who resided in his Georgia household and also drove the insured vehicle.
(2) “Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant failed to show that there is a conflict between the laws of Georgia and New York with respect to the retroactive rescission of an automobile insurance policy which has been issued to a natural person for a private passenger vehicle, as both states prohibit the retroactive rescission of such a policy (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313; Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Nichols, 8 AD3d 564 ; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Singletary, 279 AD2d 56, 58 ; see also Geogia Code Ann §§ 33-24-44, 33-24-45; Sentry Indem. Co. v Sharif, 248 Ga 395, 282 SE2d 907 ; Liberty Ins. Corp. v [*2]Ferguson, 263 Ga App 714, 589 SE2d 290 ; FCCI Ins. Group v Rodgers Metal Craft, Inc., 2008 WL 2951992, *7-8 ; cf. T.J. Blake Trucking, Inc. v Alea London, Ltd., 284 Ga App 384, 643 SE2d 762 ).”
The plight of the innocent Assignor who entered a vehicle not knowing that it embodied the misrepresentation.
Related Articles
- Policy rescission under Pennsylvania law with insufficient proof requirements
- Pennsylvania insurance law applied in New York courts and choice of law principles
- Cross-state insurance law conflicts between New York and New Jersey
- Material misrepresentation in New York insurance claims
- Identity fraud and misrepresentation in insurance policy procurement
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.
56 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, 2021Material Misrepresentation defense
New York court clarifies the high burden insurers face when claiming material misrepresentation as a defense to deny coverage in no-fault insurance cases.
Sep 25, 2020The spreadsheet was not in admissible form?
Court case analysis examining admissibility of business records and material misrepresentation in no-fault insurance policy procurement disputes in New York.
Aug 19, 2010Material Misrepresentations – Must follow the Ins Law 3105 rule
New York court rules insurers must prove material misrepresentation with underwriting documentation. Ameriprise failed to establish it wouldn't have issued policy.
Jun 3, 2018The 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, 2016Fraudulent prcourement defnese
Pennsylvania insurance policy rescission defense fails against innocent third parties in NY courts. Choice of law typically favors vehicle registration state in cross-border...
Mar 19, 2015Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How do New York courts decide which state's law applies?
New York follows an 'interest analysis' approach to choice-of-law questions, examining which jurisdiction has the greatest interest in having its law applied. In insurance and personal injury cases, relevant factors include where the accident occurred, where the policy was issued, where the insured resides, and where the insurer is domiciled. Choice-of-law issues frequently arise in cross-border accidents and when out-of-state insurance policies cover New York accidents.
What constitutes a material misrepresentation that voids an insurance policy?
Under NY Insurance Law §3105, a misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the policy had it known the truth. Common examples include failing to disclose other drivers in the household, prior accidents, or the true use of the vehicle. The misrepresentation must be in the original application, not in a subsequent claim.
Can an insurer void a no-fault policy retroactively?
Yes. If an insurer can prove material misrepresentation in the policy application under Insurance Law §3105, it can void the policy ab initio — as if it never existed. This means all claims, including no-fault benefits, are denied. However, the insurer must prove the misrepresentation was material and relied upon when issuing the policy.
What is the burden of proof for policy voidance?
The insurer bears the burden of proving that the misrepresentation was material — meaning it would have influenced the insurer's decision to issue the policy or set the premium. Courts apply an objective test, asking whether a reasonable insurer would have acted differently. The insured's intent to deceive is not required.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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.