Key Takeaway
Alignment Chiropractic v Travelers applied Fatmir to vehicle ownership and use. The insurer failed to prove it would have refused the policy.
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.
Alignment Chiropractic v Travelers, 2020 NY Slip Op 50994(U), concerned alleged misrepresentations about vehicle ownership and use. Travelers failed to show that truthful information would have caused it to refuse the policy. Its dismissal motion remained denied.
Still current (September 2026): Insurance Law §3105(b)(1) and (c) retain the refusal-to-contract and similar-risk inquiries applied in Alignment; the statute does not dispense with proof of materiality.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
The missing underwriting link
The August 28, 2020 decision applied Interboro v Fatmir, 89 AD3d 993 (2011). For materiality as a matter of law, the record needed documentation of the insurer’s underwriting practices for similar risks. Manuals, bulletins and rules are examples in Fatmir, not a requirement that every insurer produce a document with one particular title.
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 application answer and the underwriting decision must be connected. Proof about who owned or used the vehicle does not, by itself, show what Travelers would have done with a truthful application. The appellate court found that connection missing on the motion record.
What the ruling did not decide
The court affirmed the denial of Travelers’ motion as limited by its appeal. It did not award the provider payment, find that every statement on the application was accurate or cancel the policy. Nor did it announce a heightened trial burden merely because the defense was described as fraudulent procurement.
A later trial-level comparison is Palisades v Boodram, 2026 NY Slip Op 50905(U). There, alleging a higher premium without alleging refusal to contract did not establish likely success for a preliminary injunction. That interim ruling is not a final coverage judgment. It helps identify the underwriting question, not the outcome of every rate-evasion dispute.
Jason’s September 2020 reaction
Jason’s short reaction described how he saw the cases developing. Alignment itself applied existing underwriting-proof authority:
It is so interesting how the fraudulent procurement defense transformed itself into the material misrepresentation defense”
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
- Renelique (November 2016): materiality and competing motion burdens
- Compas (2016): separate claims, tolling and verification responses
- 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 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 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 Defense Requires Section 3105 Evidence Standards in New York
Compas Medical separated six claims: three involved denial timing and materiality; three raised a dispute over returned verification. Neither side won judgment.
Jul 10, 2016
Castlepoint v Jaipersaud: Misrepresentation Voids Coverage Despite Retained Premiums
Castlepoint v Jaipersaud turned on a dwelling's actual use. The court noted underwriting proof but did not need to decide whether misrepresentation voided it.
Apr 8, 2015
A primer on Florida Law
Analysis of Florida vs New York no-fault insurance laws, focusing on retroactive policy rescission differences and choice of law implications in cross-state accident cases.
May 29, 2012
Fraudulent procurement defense not substantiated
Bronx Civil Court rules fraudulent procurement defense unsubstantiated in Quality Med.
Aug 10, 2017Was 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.
