NEW YORK

Governor Proposes Major Auto Tort Reforms

To combat high auto rates, New York’s proposed budget includes several tort‑reform measures:

Pare Down Joint and Several Liability

The proposal would narrow New York’s joint‑and‑several liability rules in auto cases. Under current law, a plaintiff may recover all non-economic damages from any liable defendant — even one with minimal fault. The bill would limit this practice, reducing plaintiffs’ ability to target deep‑pocket defendants for full pain‑and‑suffering awards when their fault is minor. It also introduces a modified comparative‑fault rule for PIP benefits. Claimants more than 50% at fault would be barred from recovering PIP benefits.

Tighten Serious‑Injury Threshold

New York’s serious‑injury requirement would be revised by eliminating the 90/180‑day category, removing claims based on short‑term impairments that limit daily activities for 90 of the first 180 days after the accident.

Require Fault Before Serious‑Injury Determination

The bill would change litigation sequencing by requiring the trier of fact to decide fault first, before determining whether a plaintiff has a qualifying serious injury. This shifts an issue that is currently often resolved pre‑trial into the trial process itself.

Impose High‑Risk Driver Damage Cap

Non‑economic damages would be capped at $100,000 for claimants who were: (1) operating uninsured; (2) convicted of impaired driving arising from the crash; or (3) convicted of a felony involving the vehicle. Death cases are excluded.

Because Governor Hochul is advancing these reforms through the state budget, they are more likely to pass than bills introduced outside the budget process. Bill Text (PDF p. 161-163)

Off‑Premises Means No Coverage: Appellate Division Defines the Bounds of Designated‑Premises Endorsements

New York’s Appellate Division recently narrowed the scope of designated‑premises endorsements. A restaurant employee struck a pedestrian about a block from the restaurant while bicycling back from a delivery. Although the policy covered injuries arising from the “ownership, maintenance or use” of the premises and “operations necessary or incidental” to them, the court held the endorsement requires a direct spatial and functional nexus to the listed location. Business activity alone, even if within the scope of employment, was insufficient.

Reversing the trial court, the Appellate Division found no premises‑based connection: the collision occurred on a public street, not in an area appurtenant to or necessary for accessing the restaurant. Because the accident site lacked any meaningful link to the insured premises, the insurer owed no coverage. Decision

NEVADA

Nevada Clarifies Excess May Pursue Subrogation Against Primary Carriers, but Leaves Carrier Dispute for Another Day

The Nevada Supreme Court recently addressed — without deciding the merits of either insurer’s position — whether an excess carrier may bring an equitable‑subrogation claim against a primary insurer after funding a settlement exceeding the primary insurer’s limits. The Ninth Circuit asked Nevada to clarify state law after North River contributed $4 million above James River’s $1 million limit to resolve an underlying wrongful‑death suit. Nevada held that an excess insurer can pursue such a claim, even when the case settles within the carriers’ combined limits. The court emphasized that an excess carrier “stands in the shoes” of the insured and may assert any failure‑to‑settle claim the insured could have brought.

No liability has been determined between the insurers; the ruling simply answers the legal question and returns the matter to federal court for further proceedings. The decision aligns Nevada with the majority rule and provides clarity for excess and primary carriers alike. Decision

MASSACHUSETTS

Grandma’s Financial Support Not Enough for Residency

The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed a ruling that had required the grandmother’s homeowner’s insurer to indemnify her grandson for a $300,000 personal injury judgment. The claimant argued the grandson qualified as an insured because he was a “resident” of his grandmother’s household, but the appellate panel found almost no connection to that household beyond financial support.

The appellate court noted the grandson did not receive mail at his grandmother’s home, did not use the address on official documents, rarely visited, and had no intent to live there. Financial support alone was insufficient to establish residency. The judgment was reversed, and the grandmother’s homeowners insurer owed no coverage. Decision