.

Defense Digest

Scheme to Defraud Insurance Carriers May Leave 'Runners' Walking Behind Bars

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2023

June 1, 2023

Key Points:

  • A recently introduced bill in the New York State Assembly will hold accident scene runners as criminal defendants for unlawful procurement of clients, patients, and customers. 
  • Runners are most common in staged and intentional accidents. 
  • According to the Department of Financial Services, no-fault fraud reports accounted for 93% of all fraud reports received in 2022 and 90% of all health care fraud reports received since 2018.

New York Insurance Law § 5102 and the corresponding no-fault regulations require automobile insurance carriers to provide a statutory mandatory minimum coverage of $50,000 for “first party benefits” for “basic economic loss” due to personal injury arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle. No-fault law provides for prompt payment for medical treatment, so claimants do not need to file personal injury lawsuits to be reimbursed. Under no-fault law, patients may assign their right to reimbursement from an insurance carrier to other parties, including health care providers.

Due to the extremely high volume of claims that must be processed within strict timeframes, the no-fault industry is primed for health care provider fraud. Often, health care providers are assisted by “runners,” who procure patients. 

Significantly, a recently introduced Bill in the New York State Assembly will hold accident scene runners as criminal defendants for unlawful procurement of clients, patients, and customers. The proposed Bill includes the addition of three new sections: (1) N.Y. Penal Law §§ 176.85, 176.90, and 176.95, and (2) an amendment of §176.00 to include new subdivisions which define “runner” and “provider.” 

Under the proposed Bill, a “runner” is defined as “a person, not a provider, who with the intent to obtain a material pecuniary benefit, procures or attempts to procure a client, patient or customer at the direction of, request of, in cooperation with, while employed by, or with intent to solicit a fee from, a provider or from any person who creates the impression that he or she or his or her practice can provide legal or health care services.” See N.Y. Assembly Bill 855, 205th N.Y.S. Legislature (2023). The proposed Bill defines “provider” as a “health care professional, an owner, or operator of a health care practice or facility or an attorney.” See N.Y. Assembly Bill 855. This means an individual charged as a runner or provider could face up to a first degree class D felony, as further defined below.

According to the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), no-fault fraud reports accounted for 93% of all fraud reports received in 2022 and 90% of all health care fraud reports received since 2018. See DFS, “Investigating and Combating Health Insurance Fraud,” dated 03/15/2023. In 2019, the DFS implemented investigations to uncover information regarding runners’ involvement in staged accidents and doctors engaging in no-fault fraud for rendering unnecessary medical treatment.

The two most common staged accident scenarios are drivers who intentionally hit their automobiles together or the driver of one automobile causes an accident with an unsuspecting driver of another automobile. See DFS, “Investigating and Combating Health Insurance Fraud,” dated 03/15/2020. An additional scenario involves “jump-ins,” which occur when individuals are not involved in the accident but are added to the accident report.
 
Runners are most common in staged and intentional accidents. After an accident occurs, a runners appear in order to tip-off individuals to medical clinics and law firms for a kickback, and they coach accident victims to exacerbate injuries. Runners receive a pecuniary kickback from clinic controllers and doctors when solicited patients undergo medically unnecessary treatments at no-fault clinics. Subsequently, personal injury lawyers file lawsuits. As a result, insurance carriers shell out millions on unnecessary medical expenses, lost wages, and litigation defense costs—all set in motion by runners, whose sole intent is to defraud insurance carriers.

Should this Bill be passed and enacted, a runner or provider could be charged for the unlawful procurement of clients, patients, or customers in the third, second, or first degree. It would depend on the frequency of occurrences and pecuniary benefit received in exchange.

A runner will be charged in the third degree under N.Y. Penal Law § 176.85, a Class A misdemeanor, if he or she knowingly acts as a runner more than once during a year. A provider would be charged under this section if the provider “uses, solicits, directs, hires or employs another” as a runner more than once during a year and offers a material pecuniary benefit. See N.Y. Assembly Bill 855.

A runner will be charged in the second degree under N.Y. Penal Law § 176.90, a Class E felony, if he or she knowingly acted as a runner on five or more occasions within a 12-month period or received a pecuniary benefit in aggregate of $5,000. The same penalty is applicable to the provider who employs the runner.

A runner will be charged in the first degree under N.Y. Penal Law § 176.95, a Class D felony, if he or she knowingly acted as a runner on more than ten occasions in a 12-month period or received an aggregate of $20,000. Similarly, a provider knowingly employs a runner for ten or more occasions over a 12-month period or offers pecuniary benefit of over $20,000, he or she would face a Class D felony. See N.Y. Assembly Bill 855.

It is hoped that the enactment of Assembly Bill 855 will act as a deterrent to stop runners and providers from engaging in insurance fraud schemes. It may also incentivize insurance carriers to conduct and participate in investigations, which resulted in $518 million in savings and $48 million in recovered funds in 2021. See “Investigating and Combating Health Insurance Fraud,” dated 03/15/2023.

by Danielle Corbisiero, Esq.

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2023, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

The Best Defense is Already in the File: Documentation in Civil Rights Litigation

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Exclusion of Legal Malpractice Expert as Impermissible Net Opinion

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias obtained a favorable decision on behalf of their client in a case centering on the admissibility of expert testimony in legal malpractice actions. In Martin v. Loury, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the exclusion of a plaintiff's legal malpractice expert, holding that the expert's opinions on causation and damages were too speculative to support the malpractice claim. The legal malpractice action arose from an underlying employment dispute involving claims for damages stemming from the breach of an employment agreement. The plaintiff alleged that defense counsel committed malpractice during a second trial by failing to recall the plaintiff as a rebuttal witness after the employer's CEO testified. According to the plaintiff's expert, additional rebuttal testimony would have bolstered the plaintiff's damages claims and led to a more favorable result. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division rejected that theory. The courts found that the expert could not explain how the proposed rebuttal testimony would have altered the outcome of the underlying case or resulted in any additional recoverable damages. Notably, the trial judge in the underlying employment matter had already rejected the CEO's testimony as not credible and had accepted the damages analysis advanced by the plaintiff. The court had also determined that the amount of damages was not genuinely disputed. As a result, the expert's opinion that additional rebuttal testimony would have produced a better outcome was unsupported by the record and based on speculation rather than evidence. The Appellate Division agreed that neither the plaintiff nor the expert could identify any actual damages attributable to the alleged malpractice or demonstrate the required element of proximate causation. The court further upheld the trial court's application of New Jersey's net opinion doctrine, finding that the expert failed to provide the necessary "why and wherefore" supporting his conclusion that the attorney's conduct caused a compensable loss. Because the opinions rested on unquantified possibilities rather than demonstrable facts, they were inadmissible. Key Takeaway for Legal Malpractice Defendants For attorneys and firms defending legal malpractice claims, Martin v. Loury underscores the importance of closely scrutinizing an opponent's expert report on the critical elements of proximate causation and damages. The decision demonstrates that a malpractice claim cannot survive where an expert merely speculates that different litigation tactics might have produced a better result. Instead, the plaintiff must present admissible expert testimony grounded in the record that explains how the alleged attorney error probably changed the outcome of the underlying matter and resulted in measurable damages.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

Ohio Supreme Court Holds That a Binding Appraisal Award May Not Be Set Aside Absent Specific Evidence of Manifest Mistake or Fraud

On July 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a rare opinion on the binding effect of an appraisal award in a property insurance policy.  The Court in One Church held: A binding appraisal award will not be set aside unless an error is so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—To plead a claim of mistake with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B), facts alleged in a complaint must constitute the elements of mistake—Allegation that additional, hidden damage was discovered after appraisal award failed to state a claim of mistake that could justify setting aside binding appraisal.  The case arose out of a claim brought by One Church against its insurer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company for roof damage from a storm. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the parties agreed to submit the matter to appraisal. The two appraisers inspected the building, and both appraisers agreed that the damages were $313,271.98. The insurer paid the agreed appraised amount.  Thereafter, the insured submitted a claim for an additional $206,663.09 in damages. The insured argued that these additional damages were not discovered until after the repairs began, and that they should be permitted to submit an additional claim, even though there had already been a binding appraisal of damages. The insurer refused to pay the additional damages, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  In the trial court, the insurer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the binding appraisal award barred any further claims. The insured took the position that additional hidden damages could not be discovered until after the repairs began, and therefore there was a mutual mistake. The trial court dismissed the case on the insurer’s motion, because there was no “evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake”. The Court of Appeals agreed that appraisal awards are generally binding, but noted that an appraisal award can be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the insured had pled mistake with sufficient particularity. The insurer appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court decision dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court found that since the insured had already demanded appraisal, and the appraisal award was binding, “something more than error of judgement, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake” must be pled with particularity, and proven for the insured to override the appraisal award. Since the complaint did not allege fraud or manifest mistake with sufficient particularity, something more than a mere error of judgment, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim.  The complaint in this case did not challenge the appraisal award. It pled that additional damages were discovered that were not apparent when the appraisal was done. It did not specify “who discovered the damages, how they were discovered, where they were found, why they were previously hidden, or why they rise to the level of a manifest mistake that the “appraiser would have corrected...had it been called to his attention”. Id at ¶22 citing Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases deciding the effect of appraisal awards are unusual. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in One Church relies primarily on 19th century case law for its conclusion. This emphasizes the fact that there is minimal case law deciding the effect of binding appraisal clauses in property insurance policies, and makes this case all the more significant. A lengthy dissent was written by Justice Fisher, who would have affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding the case for a decision on the merits. Of course, the decision works both ways, and an insurer dissatisfied with a binding appraisal award will likewise be without further recourse absent evidence of corruption, fraud, misfeasance, or manifest mistake, which must be pled with particularity. To constitute manifest mistake, “the mistake must be of such character that the arbitrator or appraiser would have corrected it had it been called to his attention.”  Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970).  The majority opinion does not specifically identify what would have been sufficient to plead mistake with particularity, or if the insured could have amended the complaint to overcome the deficiencies. The dissent argues that this was not really a case alleging mistake, but rather a question of contract interpretation. The insured did not challenge the appraisal, but argued that the hidden damage was not part of the appraisal, and the appraisal only covered the known damages.  However, this argument did not carry the day with the majority. 

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial