New York Assembly Bill A10443

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/6/26
• Refer: 3/6/26
• Report Pass: 4/29/26
• Refer: 4/29/26
• Report Pass: 5/5/26
• Engrossed: 5/14/26
• Refer: 5/14/26
• Engrossed: 6/3/26

Caption

Clarifies who may sue an insurer for violations related to misrepresentations, misleading statements and incomplete comparisons

Summary

A10443 amends section 4226(d) of the New York Insurance Law to clarify who may bring a lawsuit when an insurer knowingly violates the section and receives premium or other compensation as a result. The bill replaces the prior reference to “any person” with a more specific list of eligible plaintiffs: a resident of New York, and any policyholder, contract holder, certificate holder, or beneficiary of certain covered policies, contracts, or certificates. It also updates the language to use gender-neutral terms such as “their” instead of “his.” The practical effect is to narrow and clarify standing to sue for recovery of the penalty equal to the improper premium or compensation, while preserving the existing remedy and enforcement mechanism under the Civil Practice Law and Rules. The bill takes effect immediately and is intended to make clear which insured parties and beneficiaries may recover when an insurer’s prohibited conduct occurs under the referenced insurance provisions.

Impact

The bill amends the Insurance Law to specify the categories of people who may sue an insurer for penalties tied to knowing violations involving misrepresentations, misleading statements, and incomplete comparisons under section 4226. It affects insurers by clarifying exposure to private enforcement actions and affects New York residents, policyholders, contract holders, certificate holders, and beneficiaries by confirming their right to seek recovery. The amendment does not create a new penalty, but it refines standing and enforcement under existing law.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad support and little opposition. It passed the Assembly Insurance Committee and Assembly Codes Committee unanimously, and the bill’s last recorded action is that it passed the Senate. The available record suggests the measure was viewed as a technical clarification rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

The main point of contention, if any, is the scope of who should be allowed to sue an insurer. The bill resolves ambiguity by replacing the broad term “any person” with a defined set of eligible parties tied to the insurance relationship and New York residency. This clarification may limit claims by unrelated third parties while strengthening certainty for policyholders and beneficiaries, but the available record shows no active opposition or debate.