.

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

graphic with Maria Granaudo photo text announces she has joined the firm as a shareholder in the Health Care Dept.

News

Maria R. Granaudo Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Wilmington Office As a Shareholder in the Health Care Department

News

Christina Gonzales To Speak at the Women of Color Roundtable at DRI’s Diversity and Inclusion Seminar

Thought Leadership

Marijuana Legalization and Workplace Risk: What New Jersey Employers Need to Know

While the legalization of recreational marijuana usage poses a risk of increased work-related accidents for younger workers, employers can work to curb this increase by investing in education, effective drug policies, and employee assistance programs.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

News

Marshall Dennehey Again Earns Recognition in Distinguished Chambers USA

Thought Leadership

PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher

A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.

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.

Event

29th Annual FDLA Florida Liability Claims Conference

Jim and Erica will team up to present, "Supporting the Next Generation: Connecting with Associates." This panel-style presentation will explore communication best practices from the perspective of a senior shareholder and newer associate. The discussion will focus on the communication styles of different generations and effective strategies to avoid communication breakdowns. Topics to be discussed include the hiring process, perceptions of defense work among newer lawyers, work-life balance issues after hiring, and mentoring.

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

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

Freight brokers are intermediaries.  They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods.  Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents.  At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).  Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA .  Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption.  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA.  That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies.