New York's 2026 Auto Reforms: The 90/180 Repeal, CPLR 1411(b), and the Medical-Record Work That Follows

Short answer

For actions commenced on or after May 26, 2026, New York removed the 90/180-day non-permanent injury category from the serious-injury definition in Insurance Law §5102(d). It also requires the trier of fact to decide fault before serious injury, and adds a modified comparative-fault rule in new CPLR 1411(b). With the 90/180 route gone, motor-vehicle claims rest on the remaining objective categories. Quantified, contemporaneous, gap-explained medical proof now decides more cases.

Key takeaways

• Source: Part EE of Chapter 58 of the Laws of 2026, signed May 26, 2026, as summarised by the NY Department of Financial Services.
• The 90/180 category is gone for new actions, so "significant limitation" and "permanent consequential limitation" carry more weight.
• Gaps in treatment need explanation: Pommells v. Perez, 4 NY3d 566 (2005).
• Both sides need a record review built around range-of-motion measurements, imaging, causation language and gaps.

What exactly changed in New York in 2026?

According to DFS Insurance Circular Letter No. 3 (2026), Part EE of Chapter 58 of the Laws of 2026 did three things: - It amended Insurance Law §5102(d) to delete the part of the serious-injury definition covering a non-permanent, medically determined injury that prevented usual activities for 90 of the first 180 days. - It amended §5104(a) so the trier of fact determines fault before deciding whether the injury is serious. - It added CPLR 1411(b), a modified comparative-negligence rule that bars recovery where the claimant's culpable conduct exceeds the defendants'.

The changes apply to actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026. Commentators describe the comparative-fault change in slightly different terms, and its exact scope matters. Read the enacted text before relying on it in a specific case.

Why does the 90/180 repeal increase the medical-record work?

The 90/180 category let a claimant win on the effect of the injury on daily life over a defined period. Without it, motor-vehicle plaintiffs must fit one of the remaining categories, most often "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" or "permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member", or show a fracture. Those categories are proved through objective findings.

New York's Court of Appeals has long looked to measured loss of range of motion as such proof. Pommells v. Perez relies on range-of-motion measurements, citing Toure v. Avis, 98 NY2d 345. That proof lives in the records: goniometer readings against normal values, imaging, neurological findings, and how they change over time.

Why do gaps in treatment matter more now?

In Pommells v. Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574 (2005), the Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff who stops treatment while claiming serious injury "must offer some reasonable explanation for having done so". It also said a cessation of treatment "is not dispositive". A review that finds every gap, and finds the explanation in the record (no-fault benefits cut off, insurance lapse, a physician's discharge to home exercise), protects the plaintiff. The same review gives defense counsel the gaps that are not explained.

What should a 2026-ready New York record review contain?

How OASIS supports New York auto cases

OASIS paralegals build New York-ready chronologies with range-of-motion and imaging tables, gap analysis and source cites, for plaintiff and defense firms in NYC, Long Island and the rest of the state. The first 12 working hours are free, then $12 an hour.

FAQ

Was the 90/180-day rule repealed in New York?

Yes, for actions commenced on or after May 26, 2026, by Part EE of Chapter 58 of the Laws of 2026, according to NY DFS.

Does the 90/180 repeal apply to cases filed before May 26, 2026?

According to DFS, the amendments apply to actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026. Earlier actions remain under the prior definition.

What is CPLR 1411(b)?

The new modified comparative-fault provision added in 2026. DFS describes it as barring recovery where the claimant's culpable conduct exceeds that of the defendants. Read the enacted text for its scope.

How do you prove a significant limitation after the repeal?

With objective medical evidence, typically quantified range-of-motion loss compared to normal, imaging and clinical findings, plus a reasonable explanation for any gap in treatment.

Sources

• NY DFS, Insurance Circular Letter No. 3 (2026)
• Pommells v. Perez, 4 NY3d 566 (2005)
• Segal McCambridge, "Now, It's Serious"

ADD-ON — SCOPE CLARIFICATION: New York’s CPLR 1411(b) rule concerns covered motor-vehicle personal-injury actions, not all tort claims; actions solely for wrongful death or property damage are excluded. Counsel should check the enacted provision for the particular claim.

Related services and reading

• Medical chronologies
• Billed vs paid medical damages by state
• Medical record review for insurance defense
• Contact

View specimen: Medical Chronology: Calloway v. Vance

Send us a New York file

We assist licensed attorneys; we do not provide legal advice or represent clients. This article is general operational information. Applicable law and professional rules must be checked by supervising counsel.