Conditions Precedent to Coverage Under Mandatory PIP Endorsements

, New York Law Journal

   | 1 Comments

Mitchell S. Lustig and Jill Lakin Schatz write that there is no doubt that a case directly involving the holding in 'Unitrin' will eventually reach the Court of Appeals. At that time, it is anticipated that the court will follow 'Westchester Medical Center,' reaffirm 'Chubb' and relegate 'Unitrin' to the dustbin of no-fault history where it belongs.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • not available

    Good article. Like many court rules and opinions on no-fault issues, Unitrin made me wonder whether it was founded more upon the Court's belief in its own legal analysis or a desire that no-fault provider plaintiffs file their masses of suits elsewhere.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202560404360

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.