What Is NY’s Serious Injury Threshold? (2026 Law)
New York significantly changed its automobile accident laws in 2026, including one of the most important rules governing whether an injured person can recover compensation for pain and suffering after a motor vehicle accident. For decades, New York Insurance Law § 5102(d) recognized nine separate categories through which an injury could qualify as a “serious injury.” As part of New York’s 2026 motor vehicle insurance reforms, lawmakers eliminated the category commonly known as the “90/180-day rule.”
The change took effect on May 26, 2026, and applies to actions and proceedings commenced on or after that date. This effective-date provision matters because the date of the accident alone does not determine whether the old or new serious-injury standard applies. An individual injured before May 26, 2026 whose lawsuit was not commenced until on or after that date may be subject to the amended law.
For people injured in New York car accidents, the consequences can be substantial. A claimant can no longer establish serious injury solely under the former statutory category for a medically determined nonpermanent injury that substantially prevented the person from performing all of their customary daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days following the injury. Injured people and their attorneys must instead determine whether the medical evidence establishes one or more of the eight categories that remain under Insurance Law § 5102(d).
If you were seriously injured in a car accident in New York City, Westchester, Long Island, or elsewhere in New York, Greenstein & Pittari, LLP can evaluate how the 2026 changes affect your right to pursue compensation. Call 1-800-VICTIM2 (1-800-842-8462) for a free consultation. No fee unless successful.
What changed in New York’s serious injury law in 2026?
New York eliminated the 90/180-day category from the statutory definition of “serious injury” for actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026. Before the amendment, Insurance Law § 5102(d) allowed an injured person to potentially satisfy the threshold through a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature that prevented the person from performing all of the material substantially acts constituting their usual and customary daily activities for at least 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the injury. The current statute has removed that language. The remaining serious-injury categories continue to include death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, fracture, loss of a fetus, permanent loss of use, permanent consequential limitation, and significant limitation of use.
What are the eight serious injury categories under the new law?
For actions subject to the amended law, Insurance Law § 5102(d) now defines “serious injury” as a personal injury resulting in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; a fracture; loss of a fetus; permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function, or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; or significant limitation of use of a body function or system. The removal of the ninth 90/180-day category does not mean that every injury must necessarily be permanent. The statute still separately recognizes a “significant limitation of use of a body function or system.” Whether an injury satisfies that category depends upon the nature and degree of the limitation and the medical evidence establishing it.
Is the 90/180-day serious injury rule still available in New York?
The 90/180-day category is no longer part of the current definition of serious injury for actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026. This represents a substantial change for certain accident victims because the former category provided a statutory path for some medically determined injuries that were disabling for a substantial period following an accident but were not necessarily permanent. Evidence that a person missed months of work, needed assistance with ordinary activities, could not exercise, drive, care for children, or perform other customary activities may still be relevant to damages and to the medical consequences of an injury, but satisfying the former 90/180 formulation itself is no longer an independent means of crossing the serious-injury threshold in a case governed by the amended statute.
Does the new serious injury law apply based on the accident date or lawsuit filing date?
The critical statutory date is when the action or proceeding was commenced. The 2026 amendments took effect May 26, 2026, and apply to actions and proceedings commenced on or after that date. As a result, an accident that happened before May 26, 2026 does not necessarily mean the former serious-injury definition applies. If an action arising from an earlier accident was commenced on or after May 26, the amended law may govern. Conversely, an action commenced before the effective date is not automatically converted to the new standard merely because the case remains pending afterward. This distinction makes it particularly important for people with older unresolved automobile accident claims to have counsel determine which version of Insurance Law § 5102(d) governs their case.
Does every car accident injury now have to be permanent?
No. Although the 2026 amendment eliminated the statutory category specifically addressing certain nonpermanent injuries under the former 90/180-day rule, the current statute still recognizes “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” as a separate serious-injury category. It also recognizes “permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member” and “permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system,” where permanence is expressly required. These categories should not be treated as interchangeable. The medical findings, diagnosis, degree of functional limitation, prognosis, objective testing, and relationship between the injury and accident must be evaluated to determine which statutory category the evidence may support.
Can a fracture still automatically qualify as a serious injury?
Insurance Law § 5102(d) expressly identifies a fracture as a serious injury. The 2026 amendment did not eliminate the fracture category. Accordingly, a person who sustains a documented fracture in a covered motor vehicle accident does not have to rely on the former 90/180-day category to establish that particular injury as serious under the statutory definition. However, a qualifying serious injury is separate from proving that another person was legally responsible for causing the accident and separate again from determining the amount of damages. Medical causation may also remain disputed, particularly where defendants contend that a condition resulted from a prior accident or another cause.
What does the new law mean for herniated discs, torn ligaments, and other soft-tissue injuries?
Herniated or bulging discs, ligament injuries, tendon injuries, and other soft-tissue conditions require careful analysis because a diagnosis by itself does not necessarily answer whether the statutory serious-injury threshold has been satisfied. Under the amended law, an attorney must evaluate whether the medical evidence establishes one of the remaining categories, such as a significant limitation of use of a body function or system or, where supported, a permanent consequential limitation. MRIs and other diagnostic studies can establish structural pathology. At the same time, examinations, quantified functional testing, range-of-motion measurements, operative findings, treatment records, and physician opinions may help establish the degree and duration of the resulting limitation. Insurers frequently challenge these cases by arguing that imaging reflects degeneration, that restrictions are minor, that the accident did not cause the condition, or that treatment gaps undermine the claimed severity.
What medical evidence is important under the new serious injury standard?
Objective, well-documented medical evidence can be critical when the claimed injury depends on proving a significant or permanent functional limitation. The medical record should accurately document the condition from the earliest treatment forward, including relevant diagnostic studies, clinical examinations, measured restrictions, treatment recommendations, specialist evaluations, procedures, surgery when applicable, and the patient’s response to treatment. Doctors may also need to address causation, particularly where imaging reveals degenerative changes or the injured person has a history of prior accidents or treatment involving the same body part. A strong medical record does more than establish that the patient experienced pain. It helps show what was physically injured, how bodily function was affected, whether the limitation is significant or permanent where required, and whether the accident caused or aggravated the condition.
Can an insurance company argue that my injury is not serious enough to sue?
Yes. Serious-injury threshold defenses have long been a major issue in New York automobile litigation, and eliminating the 90/180 category removes one avenue injured plaintiffs previously used to overcome that defense. An insurer or defendant may argue that range-of-motion limitations are insufficient, MRI abnormalities are degenerative or preexisting, medical findings are not objective, treatment was interrupted without adequate explanation, or the claimed limitations do not rise to the level required by § 5102(d). These arguments do not automatically establish that an injured person lacks a claim. They show why the medical record, diagnostic evidence, treatment history, causation analysis, and applicable statutory category should be evaluated together rather than relying solely on the diagnosis name.
Did the 2026 reforms also change New York’s comparative fault law for car accident cases?
Yes. For personal injury actions subject to Insurance Law Article 51 and governed by the new law, CPLR § 1411(b) now provides that a claimant is barred from recovery when the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant is greater than the culpable conduct of the person against whom recovery is sought, or greater than the combined culpable conduct of the persons against whom recovery is sought. This is a significant change from the traditional rule under which a claimant’s comparative negligence generally reduced damages proportionately without necessarily eliminating recovery. Because the new subsection applies specifically to actions subject to Article 51, attorneys must determine whether the motor vehicle claim falls within that statutory framework and which version of the law governs based upon when the action was commenced.
Did the 2026 law change how fault and serious injury are decided?
Yes. The amended Insurance Law § 5104(a) establishes a sequence for determining these issues in actions seeking non-economic damages under Article 51. The trier of fact must determine the party or parties at fault before deciding whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury, and liability for non-economic loss cannot be fixed unless and until the court determines the existence of a serious injury. This reinforces an important distinction in New York automobile litigation: proving that another driver caused an accident and proving that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury are separate issues. Even strong evidence of another driver’s negligence does not, by itself, meet the serious-injury threshold, just as evidence of a serious injury does not establish who caused the collision.
Did New York also create a $100,000 pain-and-suffering limit for some drivers?
Yes, but the $100,000 limitation does not apply to every injured driver or every New York automobile accident case. The amended Insurance Law § 5104(d) limits non-economic damages to $100,000 in certain serious-injury actions brought by an injured person who was at fault but is not otherwise barred from recovery under CPLR § 1411 and who falls within specified statutory circumstances. Those circumstances include certain persons operating an uninsured vehicle they were responsible for insuring, subject to the statute’s exception for a lapse of less than 30 days; persons operating while impaired who are convicted of that offense; and persons operating a vehicle in the commission of a felony, or immediate flight from it, who are convicted of that felony. The statute provides that this limitation does not apply to actions for injuries resulting in death.
Does eliminating the 90/180 rule eliminate New York No-Fault benefits?
No. The serious-injury threshold and No-Fault benefits address different parts of a New York automobile accident claim. Insurance Law § 5102(d) defines the serious-injury threshold for recovering non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, in cases governed by Article 51. No-Fault insurance, by contrast, provides first-party benefits for qualifying economic losses regardless of fault, subject to the applicable coverage requirements and limitations. Removing the 90/180 category therefore does not mean an injured person automatically loses No-Fault medical or lost-earnings benefits merely because the injuries do not satisfy one of the remaining serious-injury categories. Analyze the availability of No-Fault benefits and the right to pursue pain-and-suffering damages separately.
What should I do if my accident happened before May 26, 2026 but I have not filed a lawsuit?
You should have the claim reviewed promptly because the date the action is commenced can determine which version of the serious-injury law applies. The 2026 reforms expressly apply to actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026, rather than simply to accidents occurring after that date. Someone injured before the effective date who did not commence an action until afterward therefore faces a different statutory framework than someone whose action was already pending. Other deadlines also continue to apply, including the applicable statute of limitations and potentially much shorter deadlines in claims involving municipalities or other governmental entities. The effective-date issue should therefore be analyzed as part of a broader review of the accident, injuries, filing history, defendants, insurance coverage, and procedural deadlines.
Why Choose Greenstein & Pittari, LLP?
New York’s 2026 automobile tort reforms make careful legal and medical analysis even more important in serious car accident cases. Eliminating the 90/180-day category means lawyers handling cases governed by the amended statute must identify which remaining serious-injury category the evidence supports and anticipate insurance companies’ arguments about causation, degeneration, prior injuries, treatment gaps, functional limitations, and the significance of objective medical findings.
Greenstein & Pittari, LLP has decades of experience representing people seriously injured in motor vehicle accidents throughout Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Staten Island, Westchester, Long Island, and throughout New York. We investigate the accident, preserve evidence, review medical and diagnostic records, examine available insurance coverage, and prepare cases to withstand serious-injury and liability defenses.
Our attorneys also recognize that the 2026 changes extend beyond eliminating the 90/180 category. The amended comparative-fault rules, serious-injury requirements, trial sequencing provisions, and insurance issues can interact in ways that materially affect a motor vehicle injury claim. Each case requires an individualized analysis based upon the applicable version of the law, the medical evidence, the circumstances of the collision, and the available insurance coverage.
Don’t Be a Victim Twice. Call Greenstein & Pittari, LLP at 1-800-VICTIM2 (1-800-842-8462) for a free consultation. Our English- and Spanish-speaking staff are available to discuss your case. No fee unless successful.