On May 27, 2026, Governor Kathy Hochul signed New York’s 2026 state budget into law. The $268.1 billion budget includes significant tort reform provisions for New York State motor vehicle litigation. The reforms took effect immediately and apply to all motor vehicle actions commenced on or after the law’s passage, other than accidents resulting in a death or property damage.
I. Shift from Pure to Modified Comparative Negligence in Motor Vehicle Cases
The biggest change is to C.P.L.R. § 1411, which has long governed comparative negligence in New York. With the addition of a new subsection “b,” New York now moves from a pure to a modified comparative negligence state but just for motor vehicle accident cases.
Under a pure comparative negligence system, plaintiffs could recover compensation even if they were predominantly at fault. For example, a party who was 99 percent responsible for an accident could still recover one percent of the total damages. Now, under the new law, a plaintiff who is more at fault (i.e. more than 50 percent) than the other persons involved in a motor vehicle accident cannot recover.
In practice, if a jury finds a car accident plaintiff is 51 percent or more at fault, it will not proceed to calculate and award damages.
II. Elimination of the 90/180-Day Serious Injury Category
The tort reform also amends subsection (d) of Insurance Law § 5102 to eliminate the so-called “90/180-day” category of serious injury. Under prior law, a plaintiff could satisfy the serious injury “threshold” by demonstrating a medically determined injury of a non-permanent nature that prevented them from performing substantially all of their usual and customary daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days immediately following the accident (e.g. going to work or school).
This category faced significant criticism because it often relied on subjective, self-reported information and/or allowed someone who could go to work but didn’t to automatically meet the threshold.
III. New Sequencing Requirement: Fault Before Serious Injury
Another aspect is that Insurance Law § 5104(a) now requires juries to decide who is at fault for a motor vehicle accident before figuring out whether the serious injury threshold is met. Under the new rules, liability for non-economic loss (i.e., pain and suffering) isn’t set until fault is determined. This means that the trier of fact must assign blame first, then assess damages afterward, specifically for non-economic losses.
The new sequencing rule has significant strategic effects. Under the updated comparative negligence system for car accident cases, if the jury finds the plaintiff more than 50 percent at fault, they stop right there–no damages awarded. If the plaintiff’s fault does not exceed 50 percent, the jury then considers whether the plaintiff’s injuries satisfy the other requirements in § 5102(d). This makes trials more efficient and keeps juries from letting information about injuries bias their decision when the plaintiff is too fault-prone to recover damages.
IV. Recovery Cap for Claimants Engaged in Unlawful Conduct
Finally, Insurance Law Section 5104 now includes a new subsection (d). It caps non-economic loss (i.e., pain and suffering) recovery for a motor vehicle accident at $100,000 when the plaintiff is in one of three specific groups (unless the accident results in death):
- The plaintiff was operating an uninsured motor vehicle in violation of Article 6 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (with an exception for lapses in coverage of fewer than 30 days).
- The plaintiff was operating a motor vehicle while impaired and has been convicted of that offense.
- The plaintiff was operating a motor vehicle in the commission of a felony or in immediate flight afterwards, with a conviction for the same.
While the situations described above are thankfully rare, they do occur. The new law will prevent a significant recovery from others by drivers who were uninsured, intoxicated, and/or felons.
Christopher DeMicco contributed to this article
