New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Insurance Law § 4226 (2026)

Misrepresentations, misleading statements and incomplete comparisons by insurers

✓ current as of May 2026

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

§ 4226. Misrepresentations, misleading statements and incomplete
comparisons by insurers. (a) No insurer authorized to do in this state
the business of life, or accident and health insurance, or to make
annuity contracts shall:
  (1) issue or circulate, or cause or permit to be issued or circulated
on its behalf, any illustration, circular, statement or memorandum
misrepresenting the terms, benefits or advantages of any of its policies
or contracts;
  (2) make any estimate of the dividends or share of surplus or
additional amounts to be received on such policies or contracts;
  (3) make any false or misleading statement of the dividends or share
of surplus or additional amounts paid by any such insurer on similar
policies or contracts;
  (4) make any misleading representation, or any misrepresentation of
the financial condition of any such insurer or of the legal reserve
system upon which it operates; or
  (5) make or deliver to any person or persons any incomplete comparison
of any such policies or contracts for the purpose of inducing, or
tending to induce, such person or persons to lapse, forfeit or surrender
any insurance policy or contract.
  (6) replace the individual life insurance policies or individual
annuity contracts of an insurer by the same or different insurer without
conforming to the standards promulgated by regulation by the
superintendent. Such regulation shall:
  (A) specify what constitutes the replacement of a life insurance
policy or annuity contract and the proper disclosure and notification
procedures to replace a policy or contract;
  (B) require notification of the proposed replacement to the insurer
whose policies or contracts are intended to be replaced;
  (C) require the timely exchange of illustrative and cost information
required by section three thousand two hundred nine of this chapter and
necessary for completion of a comparison of the proposed and replaced
coverage; and
  (D) provide for a sixty-day period following issuance of the
replacement policies or contracts during which the policy or contract
owner may return the policies or contracts and reinstate the replaced
policies or contracts.
  (b) Any comparison of the policies or contracts of any such insurer or
insurers shall be deemed to be an incomplete comparison if it does not
conform to all the requirements for comparisons established by the
superintendent by regulation.
  (c) In any determination, judicial or otherwise, of the incompleteness
or misleading character of any such comparison or of representation, it
shall not be presumed that the insured knew or knows of any of the
provisions or benefits contained in any insurance policy or contract.
  (d) Any such insurer that knowingly violates any provision of this
section, or knowingly receives any premium or other compensation in
consequence of such violation shall, in addition to any other penalty
provided in this chapter, be liable to a penalty in the amount of such
premium or compensation, which penalty may be sued for and recovered by
any person aggrieved for his own use and benefit, in accordance with the
provisions of the civil practice law and rules.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Friedman v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins., 877 N.E.2d 281 (NY 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Friedman v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins., 877 N.E.2d 281 (NY 2007). · cites it 3× “A seventh cause of action sought the statutory penalty under Insurance Law § 4226 for alleged violation of insurance regulations: a refund of premiums paid.”

Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 725 N.E.2d 598 (NY 1999). · cites it 2× “" [7] Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for fraudulent concealment and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, reckless, wanton and/or negligent supervision, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement, violations of Insurance Law §§ 4226 and 2123 and…”

Minihane v. Weissman, 164 Misc. 2d 350 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1994). · cites it 6× “At issue on these motions is whether plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the "filed rate” doctrine, whether their proposed claim under Insurance Law § 4226 survives notwithstanding *353 that doctrine and whether that proposed claim states a cause of action.”

Dornberger v. Metro. Life Ins., 961 F. Supp. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). · cites it 2× “See N.Y. Ins. Law § 4226 (prohibiting misrepresentations and misleading statements as to the terms and benefits of insurance contracts).”

Russo v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins., 274 A.D.2d 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · cites it 7× “When plaintiff learned that she would be required to make premium payments beyond the seven-year projection with which she had been presented, she commenced this action alleging numerous causes of action, including violations of Insurance Law § 4226 and General Business Law §…”

DeBruyne v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 920 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1990). · cites it 6× “Count VI, invoking the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction, charged Equitable with a violation of section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law, N.Y. Ins. Law § 4226 (a)(1), for its alleged misrepresentation of the “terms, benefits or advantages of its policies or contracts.”

Dornberger v. Metro. Life Ins., 182 F.R.D. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). · cites it 3× “Dornber-ger’s claim for relief under N.Y. Insurance Law § 4226 as being distinct from the certified class action mechanism.”

Dornberger v. Metro. Life Ins., 203 F.R.D. 118 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). “The Court ruled that claims under N.Y. Insurance Law § 4226 could not be pursued in a class action and severed Plaintiffs claim under that section for an individual trial.”

Anesthesia v. Guardian Life Ins., 239 A.D.2d 248 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). · cites it 2× “We agree with the motion court that the facts alleged, which include the insurer’s renewal notices, state causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of Insurance Law § 4226, violation of General Business Law § 349, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.”

Phillips v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 498 F. Supp. 2d 690 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). “Seventh, with respect to plaintiffs claim against SunAmerica under N.Y. Insurance Law § 4226 , plaintiff alleges that SunAmerica violated this law because “SunAmeriea’s application forms and Bonus Annuity Contracts contained materially misleading misrepresentations and omissions…”

Ross v. AXA Equitable Life Ins., 115 F. Supp. 3d 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “N.Y. Ins. Law § 4226 (a)(4), (d). (SAC ¶¶ 141-46).”

Heslin v. Metro. Life Ins., 287 A.D.2d 113 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “, affd 259 AD2d 360 , mod 94 NY2d 330 ), the trial court found that the plaintiffs, also purchasers of life insurance policies marketed under the vanishing premium scheme, failed to state a cause of action for, inter alia, fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent supervision,…”

Show all 25 citing cases →

— N.Y. Insurance Law § 4226(a) — 1 case

DeBruyne v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 920 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1990). “Count VI, invoking the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction, charged Equitable with a violation of section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law, N.Y. Ins. Law § 4226 (a)(1), for its alleged misrepresentation of the “terms, benefits or advantages of its policies or contracts.”

— N.Y. Insurance Law § 4226(a)(1) — 1 case

— N.Y. Insurance Law § 4226(d) — 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.