Trial court, Second Department
Jul 9, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 51108(U)
Insurer prevailed
A SUM insurer's statutory notice duty does not require advising insureds to purchase additional coverage. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, granted the insurer summary judgment dismissing the insureds' breach-of-contract and negligence claims. The contract claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations, applying the reasoning of an earlier dismissal involving the insurance agents. That earlier ruling did not resolve the insurer's separate statutory duties under the law-of-the-case doctrine. Nevertheless, the SUM endorsement and declaration pages satisfied Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2) (A) by providing the required definitions, availability and coverage-limit information. The policy required the insureds to contact an agent if they wanted additional SUM coverage, and they raised no material factual issue.
Trial court, Third Department
May 29, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50905(U)
Provider prevailed
The insurer failed to show likely success on its address-misrepresentation defense because it alleged only that the premium would have been higher. The Supreme Court, Schenectady County, denied a preliminary injunction against benefit litigation and arbitration and dissolved the temporary restraining order in the insurer's declaratory judgment action. Under Insurance Law § 3105 (b), materiality required a showing that truthful disclosure would have led the insurer to refuse the contract. The insurer did not allege that it would have declined coverage had it known the insureds' true residence. The court separately granted the insurer's unopposed motion under CPLR 3025 (b) to add provider defendants, finding the amendment meritorious and nonprejudicial.
Trial court, Second Department
Mar 26, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50401(U)
Provider prevailed
A staged-collision defense does not excuse CPLR 7503 (c)'s 20-day deadline to seek a stay of uninsured motorist arbitration. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the insurer's petition for a permanent or temporary stay and dismissed the proceeding. Following Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Rosado, alleged intentional conduct concerned conditions of coverage, not the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. The untimely filing also barred court-directed discovery. Independently, hearsay and unauthenticated materials failed to establish sufficient evidentiary facts for a framed-issue hearing. An incorrect policy number did not justify a stay because the insurer was not misled and no evidence linked the error to its delay.
Trial court, Second Department
Mar 13, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50312(U)
Insurer prevailed
The injured claimant failed to establish timely reporting of a hit-and-run accident or an excuse for reporting it 12 days later. On a renewed motion for leave to sue MVAIC under Insurance Law § 5218, the claimant submitted an MV-104 report, efforts to locate surveillance footage, and an affirmation describing the claimant's condition after the accident. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the motion and dismissed the proceeding. Insurance Law § 5208 (a) (2) required reporting within 24 hours unless reporting was not reasonably possible or occurred as soon as reasonably possible. The claimant's submissions did not establish an excuse. MVAIC's acknowledgment of qualified-person status concerned only no-fault benefits, not non-economic loss. No triable factual issue required an evidentiary hearing under CPLR 410.
Trial court, Second Department
Feb 13, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 26033
Split result
A provider may arbitrate a claim for lost earnings incurred in attending an insurer-demanded EUO. Insurance Law § 5106 (b) encompasses reimbursement disputes arising from claim verification, and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e) requires reimbursement. The Supreme Court, Kings County, nevertheless denied vacatur and confirmed the master arbitration award rejecting the provider's claim for lack of arbitral jurisdiction: that interpretation was plausible, and legal error alone did not warrant vacatur under CPLR article 75. The court ordered the American Arbitration Association to modify its request form and deemed service proper nunc pro tunc, but denied mandamus to compel the Superintendent to promulgate procedures because rulemaking was discretionary, without reaching the CPLR article 78 objection. Attorney's fees were denied; the court deemed the interest and fee issue academic.
Trial court, Second Department
Feb 6, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50180(U)
Insurer prevailed
A master arbitrator's affirmance of a no-fault award of at least $5,000 permits a de novo action under Insurance Law § 5106 (c). The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the provider's motion to dismiss the insurer's de novo action. The provider argued that the master arbitrator merely affirmed the hearing arbitrator's award and did not independently award the statutory minimum. The court rejected that interpretation as an unreasonable restriction of the statute. De novo adjudication is available when the master arbitration determination results in an obligation to pay at least $5,000 in no-fault benefits, exclusive of interest and attorney fees, whether the master arbitrator affirms, reverses, or modifies.
