N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Insurance / ARTICLE Unfair Claim Settlement Practices; Other Misconduct; Discrimination
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Insurance Law § 2601 (2026)

Unfair claim settlement practices; penalties

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 2601. Unfair claim settlement practices; penalties. (a) No insurer
doing business in this state shall engage in unfair claim settlement
practices. Any of the following acts by an insurer, if committed without
just cause and performed with such frequency as to indicate a general
business practice, shall constitute unfair claim settlement practices:
  (1) knowingly misrepresenting to claimants pertinent facts or policy
provisions relating to coverages at issue;
  (2) failing to acknowledge with reasonable promptness pertinent
communications as to claims arising under its policies;
  (3) failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt
investigation of claims arising under its policies;
  (4) not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and
equitable settlements of claims submitted in which liability has become
reasonably clear, except where there is a reasonable basis supported by
specific information available for review by the department that the
claimant has caused the loss to occur by arson. After receiving a
properly executed proof of loss, the insurer shall advise the claimant
of acceptance or denial of the claim within thirty working days;
  (5) compelling policyholders to institute suits to recover amounts due
under its policies by offering substantially less than the amounts
ultimately recovered in suits brought by them;
  (6) failing to promptly disclose coverage pursuant to subsection (d)
or subparagraph (A) of paragraph two of subsection (f) of section three
thousand four hundred twenty of this chapter;
  (7) submitting reasonably rendered claims to the independent dispute
resolution process established under article six of the financial
services law; or
  (8) artificially deflating or otherwise lowering cost data used for
adjusted claims, or using cost data that is not appropriate for the
region of the state where the loss occurred; this shall include but is
not limited to claims adjusted by a person issued a temporary permit
pursuant to subsection (n) of section two thousand one hundred eight of
this chapter.
  (b) Evidence as to numbers and types of complaints to the department
against an insurer and as to the department's complaint experience with
other insurers writing similar lines of insurance shall be admissible in
evidence in any administrative or judicial proceeding under this section
or article twenty-four or seventy-four of this chapter, but no insurer
shall be deemed in violation of this section solely by reason of the
numbers and types of such complaints.
  (c) If it is found, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, that
an insurer has violated this section, each instance of noncompliance
with subsection (a) hereof may be treated as a separate violation of
this section for purposes of ordering a monetary penalty pursuant to
subsection (b) of section one hundred nine of this chapter. A violation
of this section shall not be a misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 95 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Nick's Garage, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 875 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nick's Garage, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 875 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2017). · cites it 7× “There is a question of material fact on Garage’s claim that Insurer engaged in deceptive practices concerning its labor rates payments, and that claim is not precluded by N.Y. Ins. Law § 2601 . On the other hand,- the district court properly granted summary judgment to Insurer…”
Rocanova v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of United States, 634 N.E.2d 940 (N.Y. 1994). · cites it 10× “The complaint alleges six causes of action — (1) common-law fraud, (2) illegal evasion of insurance claims, (3) violation of Insurance Law § 2601, (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (5) breach of fiduciary duties, and (6) intentional infliction of…”
Roldan v. Allstate Ins., 149 A.D.2d 20 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1989). · cites it 6× “Insurance Law § 2601 defines "unfair claim settlement practices”, and authorizes the imposition of a monetary penalty upon any insurer found guilty of engaging in such practices (Insurance Law § 2601 [c]; § 109 [b]).”
Riordan v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins., 756 F. Supp. 732 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). · cites it 9× “# * * $ s}: N.Y. Insurance Law § 2601 . The rules promulgated thereunder provide, in relevant part: 216.”
NY Univ. v. Cont'l Ins Co, 662 N.E.2d 763 (N.Y. 1995). · cites it 3× “" A Plaintiff's fourth cause of action alleges "unlawful" conduct generally, relating it to defendants' violations of Insurance Law § 2601 and contending that the conduct gives rise to an independent tort.”
M.V.B. Collision, Inc. v. Allstate Ins., 728 F. Supp. 2d 205 (E.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 3× “” N.Y. Ins. Law § 2601 . As discussed in the background section of this opinion, § 2610 prohibits steering.”
Belco Petroleum Corp. v. AIG Oil Rig, Inc., 164 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1991). · cites it 4× “The appeal raises several issues, the most important being whether punitive damages can be awarded against an insurance company for conduct amounting to an unfair claim settlement practice as defined by Insurance Law § 2601. That issue—whether the common-law right to punitive…”
New York Univ. v. Cont'l Ins., 662 N.E.2d 763 (N.Y. 1995). · cites it 3× “” A Plaintiffs fourth cause of action alleges "unlawful” conduct generally, relating it to defendants’ violations of Insurance Law § 2601 and contending that the conduct gives rise to an independent tort.”
Perlbinder v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 190 A.D.3d 985 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2021). · cites it 2× “He also asserted causes of action alleging deceptive conduct in violation of General Business Law § 349, and bad faith settlement practices in violation of Insurance Law § 2601 and 11 NYCRR 216.13(f)(1) and, apparently, the defendants' implied duty of good faith and fair dealing…”
Zawahir v. Berkshire Life Ins., 22 A.D.3d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2005). · cites it 2× “asonable inference that may be drawn therefrom, as we must on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we conclude that the third cause of action alleges either “bad faith” in the insurance context, deceptive business…”
Violet Realty, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 267 F. Supp. 3d 384 (W.D.N.Y. 2017). · cites it 3× “New York Insurance Law § 2601 Does Not Provide a Private Right of Action Next, Defendant argues that New York Insurance Law § 2601 does not pro *390 vide a private right of action.”
Tinlee Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 834 F. Supp. 605 (E.D.N.Y. 1993). · cites it 3× “It adds that where a complaint alleges activities in violation of Insurance Law § 2601, that is sufficient to sustain a cause of action for damages under GBL § 349 in a first party insurance action.”
Show all 95 citing cases →
N.Y. Insurance Law § 2601(a): 3 cases
Shackelton v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins., 817 F. Supp. 277 (N.D.N.Y. 1993).
Nadkos, Inc. v. Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. Risk Retention Grp., No. 37 (N.Y. June 11, 2019).
Nadkos, Inc. v. Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. Risk Retention Grp., No. 37 (N.Y. June 11, 2019).
N.Y. Insurance Law § 2601(a)(4): 3 cases
Schwartz v. Twin City Fire Ins., 492 F. Supp. 2d 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
California Union Ins. Co. v. Excess Ins. Co., Ltd., 780 F. Supp. 1010 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
Roc Nation LLC v. HCC Int'l Ins. Co., PLC, No. 1:19-cv-00554 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2020).
N.Y. Insurance Law § 2601(a)(6): 2 cases
Nadkos, Inc. v. Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. Risk Retention Grp., No. 37 (N.Y. June 11, 2019).
Nadkos, Inc. v. Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. Risk Retention Grp., No. 37 (N.Y. June 11, 2019).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.