New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Insurance Law § 3103 (2026)

Non-conforming contracts

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 3103. Non-conforming contracts. (a) Except as otherwise specifically
provided in this chapter, any policy of insurance or contract of annuity
delivered or issued for delivery in this state in violation of any of
the provisions of this chapter shall be valid and binding upon the
insurer issuing the same, but in all respects in which its provisions
are in violation of the requirements or prohibitions of this chapter it
shall be enforceable as if it conformed with such requirements or
prohibitions.
  (b) No policy of insurance or contract of annuity delivered or issued
for delivery in this state shall provide that the rights or obligations
of the insured or of any person rightfully claiming thereunder, with
respect to:
  (1) a policy of life, accident and health insurance or contract of
annuity upon a person resident in this state,
  (2) a policy of insurance upon property then in this state, or
  (3) the liabilities to be incurred by the insured as a result of
activity then carried on by the insured in this state,
shall be governed by the laws of any jurisdiction other than this state.
This subsection shall not apply to policies of marine insurance.
  (c) In any action to recover under the provisions of any policy of
insurance or contract of annuity delivered or issued for delivery in
this state which the superintendent is authorized by this chapter to
approve if in his opinion its provisions are more favorable to
policyholders, the court shall enforce such policy or contract as if its
provisions were the same as those specified in this chapter unless the
court finds that its actual provisions were more favorable to
policyholders at the date when the policy or contract was issued.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Dubuisson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., 887 F.3d 567 (2d Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dubuisson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., 887 F.3d 567 (2d Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “See N.Y. Ins. Law § 3103 (a) (invalid or illegal insurance policies "shall be valid and binding upon the insurer").”

Nat'l Convention Servs., L.L.C. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., 239 F. Supp. 3d 761 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “2d 445, 447 (1993) (“Defendant’s failure to include the mandated provisions merely triggers Insurance Law § 3103(a) and the inclusion of the required provisions is made by implication.”

In Re September 11th Liab. Ins. Coverage Cases, 333 F. Supp. 2d 111 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). · cites it 2× “N.Y. Ins. Law § 3103 (a) New York’s Insurance Law empowers the Superintendent of Insurance to promulgate regulations that are not inconsistent with statutory provisions.”

Friedman v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins., 877 N.E.2d 281 (NY 2007). “is hereby amended to conform to the minimum requirements of such statutes” (see also Insurance Law § 3103 [a] [“in all respects in which (an insurance policy’s) provisions are in violation of the requirements or prohibitions of (the Insurance Law) it shall be enforceable as if…”

Dornberger v. Metro. Life Ins., 961 F. Supp. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). “Defendants cite N.Y. Ins. Law § 3103 (a) (McKinney 1985), which provides in pertinent part that “any policy of insurance or contract of annuity delivered or *538 issued for delivery in this state in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be valid and binding…”

Halali v. Evanston Ins., 8 A.D.3d 431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). “Therefore, the binder must be construed to provide coverage on an “occurrence” basis (see Insurance Law § 3103 [a]). Mrs. Halali’s accident occurred during the period the binder was in effect.”

Bergin v. Grace, 39 A.D.3d 1017 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). “Defendant does not dispute that the insurance policy contained a provision limiting the time to commence suit to one year and that the provision was properly construed to conform to the two-year statutory minimum period (see Insurance Law § 3103 [a]; § 3404 [e]). Rather, he…”

State v. Fed. Ins., 189 A.D.2d 4 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). “Defendant’s failure to include the mandated provisions merely triggers Insurance Law § 3103 (a) and the inclusion of the required provisions is made by implication.”

G.E. Capital Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Daskal, 211 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). “, 63 NY2d 227, 231 ; Insurance Law § 3103 [a]). Consequently, we find that to the extent that Pioneer’s policy purports to require a mortgagee to bring suit within two years of the date of loss rather than within two years after it has been notified of the loss by the insurer,…”

Woolfson v. Gov't Employees Ins., 20 Misc. 3d 948 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 2008). “(See also Insurance Law § 3103 [a] [even if the policy or provision is “in violation of the requirements or prohibitions of this chapter it shall be enforceable as if it conformed with such requirements or prohibitions”]; Trizzano v Allstate Ins.”

Wile v. James River Ins. Co. (W.D.N.Y. 2022). · cites it 3× “Section 3103 of the Insurance Law, however, provides that “Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any policy of insurance or contract of annuity delivered or issued for delivery in this state in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be…”

Curiale v. DR Ins., 159 Misc. 2d 208 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1992). “Any commercial entity issuing an insurance policy within New York to New York reinsureds, factors which are present here, must surely consider the application of New York law, given New York’s strong and long-standing policy of enforcing just such insurance contracts (see,…”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— N.Y. Insurance Law § 3103(a) — 1 case

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.