New York’s No-Fault Law (Ins. L. Article 51) was controversial when it was enacted 36 years ago (L. 1973, ch. 13, in full effect Feb. 1, 1974), and it remains so today. Adopted by the Legislature to correct certain infirmities recognized to exist under the common-law tort system of compensating automobile accident claimants, the Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Reparations Act, as it was officially known, changed the legal landscape by providing a compromise: prompt payment for basic economic loss to injured persons regardless of fault, in exchange for a limitation on litigation to cases involving “serious injury.” See Pommells v. Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 570-571 (2005); Licari v. Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 234-235 (1982); Montgomery v. Daniels, 38 NY2d 41, 50-51 (1975).
The legislative intent underlying this statute was “to weed out frivolous claims and limit recovery to significant injuries,” thereby lowering insurance premiums and reducing the burden on the courts. Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Systems Inc., 98 NY2d 345, 350 (2002); Dufel v. Green, 84 NY2d 795, 798 (1995); Licari, supra. “Tacit in this legislative enactment is that any injury not falling within the new definition of serious injury is minor and a trial by jury is not permitted under the no-fault system.” Pommells v. Perez, 4 NY3d 566 (2005).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
