No-Fault Decisions, November 2026

2 decisions so far · 1 Appellate Division · 1 trial court

  • Res judicata. The First Department held that a default judgment declaring no coverage barred a provider's coverage claims under res judicata, which can apply to default judgments where collateral estoppel generally does not. An arbitration award issued and affirmed before that judgment did not defeat preclusion, since the declaratory judgment action was filed nearly two months before the arbitration claim (Hereford v Orthopaedics, Spine & Sports Med.).
  • Continued EUOs. Applying the First Department's burden under Alicea and Delacruz, Civil Court, Bronx County, found the specific objective justification of 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e) shown by the initial EUO transcript, where defense counsel said the accident and treatment remained and the assignor's representative agreed to continue, so scheduling letters stating only that a continuance was needed did not matter (360 Wellness PT).

Our summary of the month’s decisions, not the courts’ words.

Issues this month: Declaratory judgment, res judicata 1 EUO no-show 1

Decisions

Appellate Division, First Department Nov 5, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 06524 Insurer prevailed

Hereford Ins. Co. v Orthopaedics, Spine & Sports Medicine LLP

The provider's coverage claims were barred by res judicata despite an arbitration award predating the default declaratory judgment. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the order, granted the insurer's summary judgment motion dismissing those claims, and denied the provider's cross motion to dismiss the complaint. Res judicata can apply to default judgments and bars claims raised or required to be raised in an earlier suit between the same parties. Both actions concerned disclaimers based on injuries and treatment unrelated to a covered event and failure to subscribe EUO transcripts. The award's issuance and affirmance before the default judgment did not defeat preclusion because the insurer commenced the prior declaratory judgment action nearly two months before the provider sought arbitration.

Trial court, First Department Nov 6, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 26206 Insurer prevailed

360 Wellness PT PLLC v State Farm Ins. Co.

The insurer established objective justification for continued EUOs through a transcript showing that accident and treatment questions remained. The Civil Court, Bronx County, granted the insurer summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the provider's cross motion. The initial EUO ended at an agreed stopping time before those topics were reached, and the assignor's representative agreed to continue. The transcript satisfied 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e) despite scheduling letters that said only that a continuance was needed. Emails sent one day before each continued EUO did not excuse nonappearance; neither produced mutual rescheduling or offered alternative dates. The court left open whether the insurer had to justify the initial EUO, which the assignor attended.

All months

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecTotal
2026 20 29 19 11 15 13 11 6 11 7 2 144
2025 6 11 13 6 16 6 8 6 5 7 11 19 114
2024 13 7 9 2 3 8 3 3 5 2 3 4 62
2023 2 9 12 5 7 8 6 2 8 5 2 7 73
2022 7 6 7 18 6 54 17 25 20 6 12 38 216
2021 2 16 6 19 28 15 25 6 8 10 8 23 166
2020 13 9 7 6 14 16 9 28 5 18 53 10 188
2019 13 9 57 28 60 14 34 48 4 76 35 59 437
2018 12 22 6 9 39 66 13 3 2 5 99 16 292
2017 16 16 17 30 15 12 40 33 68 28 35 154 464
2016 7 16 59 16 14 66 14 8 69 58 36 18 381
2015 4 14 44 16 44 13 26 30 27 15 54 23 310
2014 8 24 36 25 25 5 15 30 5 9 4 63 249
2013 16 33 24 14 33 15 20 20 5 34 32 24 270
2012 24 21 21 44 29 40 24 70 21 19 14 30 357
2011 22 11 21 23 18 19 25 16 11 51 19 62 298
2010 25 13 34 25 15 18 28 13 3 32 31 29 266
2009 19 18 22 29 22 38 44 5 4 14 11 22 248
2008 10 23 21 26 18 12 40 12 38 24 13 22 259
2007 25 43 57 23 25 18 16 20 23 20 20 16 306
2006 11 26 27 15 30 30 45 13 12 19 23 32 283
2005 10 26 39 31 13 19 22 13 10 19 11 19 232
2004 6 10 19 15 14 19 13 8 18 14 15 29 180
2003 1 4 4 14 23

Headnotes, outcome labels and monthly summaries are our own summaries, not the courts’ words; the decision itself is the authority. Months follow the date a decision was handed down; new decisions are added monthly, so a recent month can still grow.