Coverage, Staged Accidents & Choice of Law
Case notes on whether a loss is covered at all: staged and intentional collisions, use and operation of the vehicle, who counts as an eligible injured person, and which state's law governs the policy.
169 articles from 2009–2021 · 1 current · 3 reviewed case notes · by Jason Tenenbaum
Current articles
Articles the firm treats as current: published since 2024, or older and re-checked against today's law. Most recently published or reviewed first.
- Fraudulent procurement and preclusuion Reviewed Sep 12, 2026 · first published 2014
Great Health Care v Hanover: a garaging-fraud defense failed without a timely denial. The provider won summary judgment; Prompt Medical confirms preclusion.
How the firm handles these matters
Reviewed case notes by year
Notes on decisions from earlier years that the firm has re-read against current law. Each note states when it was last reviewed and what has changed since.
2016
Older archive
Case notes as they were written at the time. They have not been re-checked against later decisions, so treat them as history and confirm the current rule before relying on one.
2021 (9)
- IME no-show is a policy defense triggering the hourly attorney fee provision
- Contractual deemer
- $200,000 No-Fault Coverage for NYC Taxis: Murzik Taxi, TLC Rule 58-13, and Pedestrians
- Alleviation – not much alleviated
- Choice of law?
- An Mvaic Notice of Claim
- Policy Exhaust?
- There was no policy
- Policy exhaustion and the business records
2020 (7)
2019 (8)
- MVAIC Claims in New York: Understanding Your Rights and Requirements
- Understanding Choice of Law in Multi-State Personal Injury Cases
- Pennsylvania Insurance Law in New York Courts: Navigating Choice of Law and the Innocent Third Party Doctrine
- Understanding Condition Precedents in New York No-Fault Insurance Claims
- MVAIC is at it again
- Workers Comp
- Interstate Insurance Law Complications in New York Personal Injury Cases
- Understanding Staged Accidents: Legal Analysis and Defense Strategies in New York
2018 (12)
- No policy, no coverage
- Staged Accident Defense: Prima Facie Evidence Standards in New York No-Fault Cases
- Policy Exhaustion goes to Madison Avenue/Someone from the Insurance Defense side should be putting in Amicu
- VA substantive law; NY Procedural law
- Use and Operation again and again
- Non-Contact Case on Motion: Driver and Passenger Affidavits Establish No Insured Incident (Compas v USAA)
- Triable issue of fact on EIP issue
- Use and Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Again: The Bus Lift Refusal Distinguished from Cividanes
- Policy voided
- Coverage – use or operation
- Priority of payment, again
- The loss was not intentional
2017 (9)
- Alleviation v Allstate Goes to the Appellate Division: Leave Granted in the Policy Exhaustion Fight
- Was the Plaintiff the owner? Court says triable issue of fact.
- When Staged Accident Allegations Create Triable Issues of Fact in NY No-Fault Cases
- Lack of Coverage Defense: Detailed Record-Search Affidavit Proves No Policy Existed
- It was not the partner affirmation this time
- Policy Exhaustion (again) must comport with the priority of payment regimen
- Pennsylvania Policy Rescission and the Innocent Third Party Doctrine in New York No-Fault Litigation
- Rescission not upheld
- The deemer acts to dismiss complaint against MVAIC
2016 (19)
- Retroactive Rescission of Auto Insurance Policies: Georgia and New York Law on Material Misrepresentation
- Innocent third-party plays out under Pennsylvania law analysis
- Occupied? Pedestrian?
- 5102(d) examined at trial against MVAIC
- Lack of Coverage: There Was No Lease for the Vehicle
- Jury said the injury was related to a stint in prison
- Supreme Court got it wrong but I saw a tactical error in the EUO
- New Jersey arbitration statute requires an application for Article 75 relief
- Claim rep affidavit sufficient to prove no insurance in effect
- Equitable subrogation takes the backseat to the wording of the regualtion
- Use and occupation
- Staged accident not proven
- AAA is licensed to transact business in NY – and recission not allowed
- UM Hearing – evidence insufficient to prove presence of coverage
- The pedestrian knockdown case
- Very sneaky UM arbitration case on Geico’s part
- Lack of coverage sustained
- An appeal for the sake of an appeal?
- Choice of law – Florida prevails allowing retroactive recission
2015 (24)
- Policy Cancellation Under Pennsylvania Law Fails in a NY No-Fault Case: Act 68 Strict Compliance
- Dismissal on arbitration grounds should be made through CPLR 7503
- Proof of no collision
- SUM Coverage in New York: Individual vs. Corporate Policy Differences Explained
- Pennsylvania law
- Embarrassment or hubrus?
- Cancellation of insurance policy
- Use and Operation: Duty to rescue inures first-party coverage
- Loss Transfer limitations
- Another use and operation
- On the motorcycle and hit again – Is there coverage?
- Progressive cannot prove they mailed documents
- MVAIC: you must provide coverage
- Policy Rescission Under Pennsylvania Law: Proving the Assignor Was Not an Innocent Third Party
- Exhaustion of benefits – strict priority of payment regimen is somewhat abrogaded
- Parties cannot stipulate away issues of pure coverage
- Defective cancellation abrogated upon proof that another carrier picked up risk
- NY No-Fault: Court Denies Insurer's Preliminary Injunction
- What happened here?
- Fraudulent prcourement defnese
- Declaratory judgment action (again) moots the underlying Civil Court action
- The buckling knee when exiting
- Staged Accident Proof at the Framed-Issue Hearing: Liberty Mutual v Young and the Stay of UM Arbitration
- What happened Mr. Rookie?
2014 (15)
- From the eyes of the insured has its limits
- MVAIC trouble
- Insurable interest
- Langan Applied: When a Collision Is an 'Accident' From the Insured's Perspective
- Supplemental affirmation on a DJ case acceptable and res judicata mandates dismissal of complaint
- Back when DJ’s roamed the earth
- A case better left unappealed
- There is no policy of insurance in effect – the standard is set forth below
- Wrong carrier (again)
- Reargument granted and complaint dismissed under PA law
- Walking out of an EUO leads to a disclaimer and a whole lot more
- Verdict sustaining that the loss was intentional sustained
- Policy can be rescined under PA law; proof insufficient as to particular Assignor
- MVAIC should have sought the information through verification
- Punted.
2013 (11)
- A choice of law analysis – PA law controls
- Documentation shows wrong insurance carrier was sued
- DJ granted – Defendant failed to present evidence that Defendant attended IME
- Delaware law applies
- Use, Operation and proximate cause liberally construed to afford coverage
- Policy Exhaustion and priority of payment
- The declaratory judgment failed to name everybody
- Checked off box #18 (I think) is sufficient to preserve fee schedule defense
- New Jersey Law – but see where it all went wrong
- Understanding Florida Choice of Law in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases: Long Island Legal Analysis
- Successful summary judgment: Plaintiff Assignor jumped on a parked car and walked away and the complaint was dismissed
2012 (6)
2011 (20)
- Court of Appeals on Condition Precedent: Hospital NF-5 Submissions and the 30-Day Notice Rule
- Appellate Term Second Department holds that MVAIC's prima facie case is similar to that of other providers
- It is John J. McGee again.
- Mallela defense must be arbitrated upon demand of Applicant
- New Jersey law bars most of Plaintiff's recovery in this PIP subrogation action
- An intentional act is precluded if not raised in a timely denial
- Choice of law in SUM context – interesting
- Contract of insurance is vitiated?
- Triable issue of fact as to lack of coverage
- District Nassau justifies IME no-show coverage defnese based upon Stephen Fogel
- Just a bad decision
- From your perspective – not mine
- A limited collateral attack on an arbitration award is upheld
- MVAIC Loses Again: Court Rejects Coverage Defense in New York No-Fault Case
- DWI defense non-upheld: mailing, denials and affidavits gone awry
- MVAIC gets hit again at the Appellate Term, First Department
- Proof insufficient to prove the accident was intentional
- Bad papers = Bad result
- Material Misrepresentation in Insurance Procurement: New York Law Protects Policyholders
- MVAIC Claim Coverage: Understanding Qualified Person Status in New York No-Fault Cases
2010 (14)
- The MVAIC blood letting continues
- DWI defense to no-fault benefits not substantiated in opposition to Hospital's motion for summary judgment
- MVAIC continues to dig its grave at the Appellate Division
- She really was not an EIP
- Use and Operation – Should the SUM endorsement be read differently than the no-fault endorsement?
- The Civil Court – in case you did not know – has limited declaratory judgment powers
- Collateral estoppel in the declaratory judgment action does not necessarily apply to the underlying no-fault action
- Occupation of a vehicle implicated through rearranging items inside vehicle while standing outside of it
- Default Judgment Pitfalls: Why Non-Hearsay Evidence Is Critical in New York Declaratory Judgment Actions
- A person who parks a truck on the side of the road, exits it and directs traffic is not using or operating the truck
- Understanding No-Fault Insurance Deductibles: A Landmark $200 Deductible Ruling
- The appellate division grants summary judgment since the loss was not an insured event – UPDATED
- Was she a resident relative?
- District Court Found That a Detailed Affidavit Was Sufficient to Show That the Vehicle Was Not Involved in a Motor Vehicle Accident
2009 (11)
- Collateral Estoppel in Medical Malpractice: Long Island & NYC Legal Guide
- DWI Consequences: No-Fault Benefits and Life Sentences in New York
- Understanding Staged Accident Allegations in New York Insurance Claims
- Understanding Pedestrian Contact Defense in New York Personal Injury Cases
- Can a Declaration of Non-Coverage that Arises from a Co-Defendant's Default be Considered Collateral Estoppel Against the Appearing and Answering Defendant?
- Robbing someone while they are changing a tire is considered use and operation in Florida
- May a peer report be performed after the 30-day claims determination period?
- Identity Fraud in Insurance Policy Procurement: Long Island NYC Legal Guide
- Insurance Material Misrepresentations: When Preponderance Matters More Than Intent
- My car was not there damnit!
- When NY and NJ Insurance Laws Collide: Understanding Cross-State Claims
Frequently asked questions
What are common coverage defenses in no-fault insurance?
The regulation names three: no coverage on the date of the accident, circumstances of the accident not covered by no-fault, and the statutory exclusions in Insurance Law § 5103(b) (11 NYCRR 65-3.8(e)). Related defenses: the collision was deliberate, not an accident (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Laguerre, 305 AD2d 490 (2d Dept 2003)), or something other than the vehicle produced the injury (Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d 211 (1996)). Coverage denials are due within 10 business days after the determination, but a late notice does not preclude the defense (11 NYCRR 65-3.8(e); Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 (1997)).
What happens if there's no valid insurance policy at the time of the accident?
If the vehicle that injured you was uninsured, first-party benefits come first from your household: a named insured or relative injured by an uninsured motor vehicle in New York claims against the insurer of the named insured or relative (11 NYCRR 65-3.12(a)(4); Insurance Law § 5103(a)(2)). If there is no such insurer and the accident occurred in New York, a qualified person applies to the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC), which pays first-party benefits for basic economic loss arising from an uninsured motor vehicle (Insurance Law § 5221(b)). MVAIC claims have their own sworn-notice conditions and time limits under Insurance Law § 5208, so act quickly.
What is policy voidance in no-fault insurance?
Policy voidance means the policy never took effect because of a material misrepresentation in the application. A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made to induce the contract; it defeats recovery only if material, meaning the insurer would have refused the contract had it known the facts (Insurance Law § 3105(a), (b)(1)). For a New York auto policy, the Second Department holds that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 bars retroactive cancellation for fraud: the policy stays in force for innocent third parties, though the insurer may raise the fraud against a participating insured (Insurance Co. of N. Am. v Kaplun, 274 AD2d 293 (2d Dept 2000)).
How does priority of coverage work in New York no-fault?
An operator or occupant of an insured motor vehicle, or any other person not occupying another motor vehicle or motorcycle, such as a pedestrian, claims against the insurer of that vehicle (11 NYCRR 65-3.12(a)(1)). A pedestrian struck by more than one insured vehicle may claim against any one of them (11 NYCRR 65-3.12(a)(2)). A named insured or relative injured by an uninsured vehicle claims on the household policy, and MVAIC pays when there is none (11 NYCRR 65-3.12(a)(4)). Where insurers dispute priority, the first insurer notified must pay and the insurers arbitrate among themselves (Insurance Law § 5106(d)(1); 11 NYCRR 65-3.12(b)(1)).
What is SUM coverage in New York?
Supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists (SUM) coverage is optional bodily injury coverage on your own auto policy that pays when the at-fault driver is uninsured or carries lower liability limits than yours, up to your SUM limit (Insurance Law § 3420(f)(2)(A)); its terms are the prescribed endorsement, 11 NYCRR 60-2.3. Payment requires exhaustion of the at-fault driver's bodily injury liability limits by judgment or settlement (11 NYCRR 60-2.3, Condition 8). Non-economic loss is payable only for a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (Insurance Law § 3420(f)(1)). Disputes go to arbitration at the insured's option and written demand (Condition 11). Give written notice as soon as practicable (Condition 2).