Key Takeaway
Both the First and Second Departments hold that priority of payment regulation 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 has no force in arbitration. Expert analysis from Long Island attorney Jason Tenenbaum.
This article is part of our ongoing no-fault coverage, with 271 published articles analyzing no-fault 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 Priority of Payment Question — Finally Answered
For years, the priority of payment regulation under 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 has been one of the murkier areas of New York no-fault practice. I have written about this issue many times over the years, each time noting the confusion and inconsistency surrounding these rules. As recently as 2023, courts were still producing opinions that cited conflicting authority — applying 65-3.15 while simultaneously relying on Harmonic Physical Therapy, a case that arguably undercuts the regulation’s application.
Now, both the First and Second Departments have spoken clearly in the arbitration context: the priority of payment regulation is of no force or effect.
First Department: Matter of Lam Quan, MD, PC v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
Matter of Lam Quan, MD, PC v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 223 A.D.3d 503 (1st Dept. 2024)
The First Department held that the priority of payment regulation is of no force or effect in the context of no-fault arbitration proceedings. This is a significant appellate-level pronouncement because the priority of payment regimen under 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 has been the subject of persistent litigation for over a decade, with practitioners and courts alike struggling to apply it consistently.
The Lam Quan decision cuts through years of confusion. In arbitration — where the vast majority of no-fault disputes are resolved — the regulation simply does not apply as a defense. Carriers cannot invoke the priority of payment hierarchy to defeat a provider’s claim in arbitration.
What This Means in Practice
For defense practitioners, this eliminates priority of payment as a viable arbitration defense in the First Department. Carriers who previously relied on 65-3.15 to argue that benefits were properly exhausted through payments to higher-priority claimants cannot sustain that argument in arbitration.
For plaintiff providers, this removes a significant obstacle. The priority of payment defense was often raised to deny claims where the $50,000 policy limit had been reached or was approaching exhaustion. With the regulation deemed ineffective in arbitration, providers have a clearer path to recovery.
Second Department: Matter of Fill Rx NY, Inc. v LM Gen. Ins. Co.
Matter of Fill Rx NY, Inc. v LM Gen. Ins. Co., 241 AD3d 918, 919 (2d Dept. 2025)
The Second Department followed suit, holding that the priority of payment regulation also has no effect in arbitration. This is critical because the Second Department handles a substantial volume of no-fault litigation from Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Kings County, and the surrounding jurisdictions — precisely the geographic areas where our clients practice.
With both Departments aligned, there is now a consistent rule across New York’s two largest appellate divisions: 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 does not operate as a defense in no-fault arbitration.
The Arc of Priority of Payment Litigation
This resolution has been a long time coming. The priority of payment issue has generated confusion at every level of the courts:
-
2017 — In Easy Care Acupuncture, PC v MVAIC (2017 NY Slip Op 51346(U)), I noted the court found triable issues of fact about whether payments complied with priority regulations, but the opinion contained so few facts that I could not understand how the issue could even be resolved.
-
2018 — In Ameriprise Ins. Co. v Kensington Radiology Group (2017 NY Slip Op 51911(U)), the case was remanded for a framed-issue hearing on exhaustion. I wrote: “This looks like pure priority of payment, which does not look good.”
-
2022 — Policy exhaustion cases continued to blur the line between exhaustion defenses and priority of payment, with inconsistent application of the regulatory framework.
-
2023 — In Advantage Radiology v MVAIC (2023 NY Slip Op 50139(U)), the court applied 65-3.15 while citing Harmonic Physical Therapy — an internal contradiction I called “one of life’s great mysteries.”
-
2024 — Lam Quan (First Department) declares the regulation has no force in arbitration.
-
2025 — Fill Rx (Second Department) agrees. The question is settled.
The trajectory is instructive: what started as a murky regulatory defense that generated inconsistent results for over a decade has been resolved by the Appellate Divisions through a clean jurisdictional limitation. The regulation may still have some theoretical application in plenary court actions, but since the overwhelming majority of no-fault disputes are resolved in arbitration, the practical effect is that priority of payment is no longer a viable defense in most cases.
Implications for Pending Cases
Practitioners with pending arbitration matters where priority of payment has been raised should take note:
- In arbitration, the defense is now foreclosed in both the First and Second Departments.
- In plenary actions, the regulation’s status is less clear, though the reasoning of Lam Quan and Fill Rx may be persuasive authority against its application there as well.
- Policy exhaustion remains a distinct defense from priority of payment. Carriers can still argue that the $50,000 limit has been reached — they simply cannot invoke the priority hierarchy to justify which claims were paid first.
The Broader Significance
This development exemplifies how New York no-fault law evolves. A regulation that was promulgated to create order in the payment hierarchy instead created years of confusion and conflicting decisions. The appellate courts resolved the problem not by clarifying the regulation but by declaring it inapplicable in the forum where it matters most.
For practitioners who have been litigating these issues for years, the Lam Quan and Fill Rx decisions provide welcome clarity. For the law of priority of payment, this is a watershed moment.
For questions about priority of payment, policy exhaustion, or any no-fault insurance issue, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum at 516-750-0595 for a free consultation.
Related Articles
How New York Priority of Payment Law Has Evolved
Verified February 2026This topic has been shaped by appellate rulings over many years. Explore the timeline below.
- Priority of Payment – More Questions Than Answers
Easy Care v MVAIC — court finds triable issues on priority of payment, but the opinion contains so few facts the issue seems unresolvable.
- Priority of Payment Again
Ameriprise v Kensington Radiology — remanded for framed-issue hearing on policy exhaustion under priority rules.
- Policy Exhaustion – Or Was It?
Policy exhaustion and priority of payment continue to blur together in inconsistent appellate rulings.
- Another Priority of Payment?
Advantage Radiology v MVAIC — court applies 65-3.15 while citing Harmonic Physical Therapy, an internal contradiction.
- Priority of Payment Regulation Has No Force in Arbitration
Lam Quan v GEICO (1st Dept 2024) and Fill Rx v LM General (2d Dept 2025) — both Departments hold the priority of payment regulation is of no force or effect in arbitration.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York's no-fault insurance system, established under Insurance Law Article 51, is one of the most complex insurance frameworks in the country. Every motorist must carry Personal Injury Protection coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of fault, up to $50,000 per person.
But insurers routinely deny valid claims using peer reviews, EUO scheduling tactics, fee schedule reductions, and coverage defenses. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum has handled over 100,000 no-fault cases since 2002 — from initial claim submissions through arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, trials in Civil Court and Supreme Court, and appeals to the Appellate Term and Appellate Division. Jason Tenenbaum is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
His 2,353+ published legal articles on no-fault practice are cited by attorneys throughout New York. Whether you are dealing with a medical necessity denial, an EUO no-show defense, a fee schedule dispute, or a coverage question, this article provides the kind of detailed case-law analysis that helps practitioners and claimants understand exactly where the law stands.
About This Topic
New York No-Fault Insurance Law
New York's no-fault insurance system requires every driver to carry Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of who caused the accident. But insurers routinely deny, delay, and underpay valid claims — using peer reviews, IME no-shows, and fee schedule defenses to avoid paying providers and injured claimants. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has litigated thousands of no-fault arbitrations and court cases since 2002.
271 published articles in No-Fault
Keep Reading
More No-Fault Analysis
How Insurance Companies Use Colossus Software to Undervalue Your Injury Claim
Insurance companies use Colossus software to lowball your injury claim. Learn how this system works and how a Long Island attorney can fight back. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 18, 2026NY No-Fault: Are You Leaving Money on the Table After a Car Crash?
Don't leave money on the table after your NY car crash. Understand no-fault benefits and when you can sue. Call 516-750-0595 for help.
Sep 23, 2025When interest clearly does not matter
Florida court cases demonstrate de minimis principle where $4.17 interest disputes are deemed too trivial for litigation, highlighting broader PIP system challenges.
Aug 18, 2022A Civil procedure lesson in the form of a no-fault case – post judgment rate of interest is 2%
Learn how post-judgment interest rates work in New York no-fault cases through B.Z. Chiropractic v Allstate, covering Civil Court procedures and appellate review.
Jul 22, 2021MVAIC issues
Key MVAIC case law on timely claim filing requirements and police reporting obligations under New York no-fault insurance law, including coverage defenses.
May 6, 2017Is this our Judge Cooper from Nassau?
Nassau County Judge Cooper's long career in no-fault insurance law cases, including IME no-show cross-motions and summary judgment practice in District Court.
Jul 18, 2011Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is New York's no-fault insurance system?
New York's no-fault insurance system, codified in Insurance Law Article 51, requires all drivers to carry Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage. This pays for medical expenses, lost wages (up to $2,000/month), and other basic economic loss regardless of who caused the accident, up to $50,000 per person. However, to sue for pain and suffering, you must meet the 'serious injury' threshold under Insurance Law §5102(d).
How do I fight a no-fault insurance claim denial?
When a no-fault claim is denied, you can challenge it through mandatory arbitration under the American Arbitration Association's no-fault rules, or by filing a lawsuit in court. Common defenses to denials include challenging the timeliness of the denial, the adequacy of the peer review report, or the insurer's compliance with regulatory requirements. An experienced no-fault attorney can evaluate which strategy gives you the best chance of overturning the denial.
What is the deadline to file a no-fault claim in New York?
Under 11 NYCRR §65-1.1, you must submit a no-fault application (NF-2 form) within 30 days of the accident. Medical providers must submit claims within 45 days of treatment. Missing these deadlines can result in claim denial, though there are limited exceptions for late notice if the claimant can demonstrate a reasonable justification.
What no-fault benefits am I entitled to after a car accident in New York?
Under Insurance Law §5102(b), no-fault PIP covers necessary medical expenses, 80% of lost earnings up to $2,000/month, up to $25/day for other reasonable expenses, and a $2,000 death benefit. These benefits are available regardless of fault, up to the $50,000 policy limit. Claims are paid by your own insurer — not the at-fault driver's.
Can I choose my own doctor for no-fault treatment in New York?
Yes. Under New York's no-fault regulations, you have the right to choose your own physician, chiropractor, physical therapist, or other licensed healthcare provider. The insurer cannot dictate which providers you see. However, the insurer can request an IME with their chosen doctor and may challenge the medical necessity of your treatment through peer review.
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 no-fault 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.