Governor Kathy Hochul's signing of the FY27 budget tort-reform package on May 27, 2026 leaves New York auto personal injury practice with two structural changes that will alter case-building from intake forward. The 90/180 serious-injury category under Insurance Law section 5102(d) is gone, and motor-vehicle trials under amended Insurance Law section 5104(a) will now proceed in three sequenced phases: liability first, serious injury second, damages third. A 50 percent fault bar for non-economic damages and a removal of the motor-vehicle exception to Article 16's several-liability limit accompany the threshold and sequencing changes.
For plaintiff firms with high-volume auto inventories, the operative question is not whether the reform shifts strategy, but where the shifts have to happen in the workup. The answer cuts across intake, treating-provider relationships, and trial preparation.
Intake and Case-Selection
The 90/180 category was the lowest-cost pathway to the serious-injury threshold for soft-tissue and short-duration impairment cases. Its elimination raises the floor for what intake teams can responsibly accept. Cases that previously cleared the threshold based on a 90-of-180 day disability narrative now require evidence that fits within the remaining statutory categories.
Intake screening should add documentation requests focused on permanent consequential limitation and significant limitation of use, both of which require objective medical evidence and a persistent quantifiable deficit. Range-of-motion measurements collected at the initial provider visit, with comparison values to age- and demographic-normed baselines, are now load-bearing rather than supplementary. Fracture documentation, which has always been a clean threshold pathway, takes on disproportionate weight when other categories are harder to establish.
The 50 percent fault bar adds a second screening question. For any case where the client may be found majority at fault, the recovery on non-economic damages is barred entirely. Cases where comparative fault between 25 and 49 percent is realistic remain viable but warrant a more conservative valuation at intake. Cases where the client may be at or above 50 percent should be flagged for further investigation before signing.
Treating-Provider Relationships
Threshold case-building now relies more heavily on the quality of the initial treating-provider records. Plaintiff firms have historically tolerated wide variation in the documentation discipline of primary-care and chiropractic providers, papering over gaps with later expert reports. Under the post-reform threshold, the contemporaneous medical record carries more weight than ever because the affirmative-defense playbook will run heavily on credibility attacks against later-developed expert opinions.
Firms should consider building a referral list of treating providers who reliably document range-of-motion measurements, positive provocative testing, neurological exam findings, and functional limitations in objective terms. The same provider habits that protect against IME challenges also support the categories that remain available under the new threshold. For clients who are already treating with a less-disciplined provider, an early second-opinion consult with a stronger documentary record can fill gaps before the affirmative-defense narrative locks in.
Fault-First Trial Sequencing
Amended Insurance Law section 5104(a) requires liability to be decided first, threshold second, damages third. The sequence creates strategic opportunities and risks that depend on which phase is the weakest part of the plaintiff's case.
Where liability is strong and damages are large, the sequencing favors the plaintiff. A liability verdict ahead of threshold testimony forces the defense to litigate the threshold without the cover of a liability dispute. Where liability is weak or contested, the sequencing forces the plaintiff to commit to a liability narrative without the emotional weight of damages testimony in front of the jury.
The practical consequence at the motion stage is that plaintiff firms should accelerate liability-only summary-judgment motions under the framework discussed in our coverage of the recent case law and settlements applying Rodriguez v. City of New York. A successful pretrial liability order collapses the first sequenced phase entirely and reframes the case as a threshold-and-damages contest from voir dire onward.
Jury-instruction templates also need a refresh. Counsel should expect defense-side motions to bifurcate where the court has not already structured the trial in three phases. Plaintiff firms should be prepared to argue for instructions that preserve the relevance of overlapping evidence across phases without confusing the jury about the order of deliberation.
Several-Liability Recalibration
The removal of the motor-vehicle exception to Article 16's several-liability limitation has the practical effect of restoring the 50 percent rule for joint and several liability on non-economic damages in multi-defendant auto cases. A defendant must be at least 50 percent at fault to face joint and several liability on non-economic damages. Below that threshold, several liability applies, which limits the collectible non-economic damages from any one defendant to that defendant's proportionate share.
The change affects how plaintiff firms evaluate the marginal value of adding a thinly-tortfeasable defendant. Adding a defendant at single-digit fault percentages no longer carries the same downside protection it did under the prior motor-vehicle exception. Decisions about whom to name and whom to release will need a closer look at the projected fault apportionment for each defendant.
What to Do This Week
The reform package became law on May 27, 2026. Refresh intake scripts, audit treating-provider referral lists, and update trial-template language to reflect fault-first sequencing. For broader reform context, see our industry news coverage of the FY27 package. The post-reform New York auto practice will look more like the modified-comparative-fault states than the pure-comparative model practitioners worked under for decades, and the transition is now underway.