.

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

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group