What happened: A New York appellate court reversed Progressive’s permanent block on a motorcyclist’s hit-and-run claim after an EMS report gave two conflicting accounts of the same accident.
Who’s involved: Progressive Direct Insurance Company and a motorcyclist seeking uninsured motorist arbitration.
What’s at stake: The motorcyclist’s uninsured motorist claim, permanently blocked by the lower court and now reopened on appeal.
Why it matters: Conflicting first-responder records can keep a hit-and-run claim alive past the physical-contact threshold - even when the insurer won the block at first instance.
Where it stands: Reversed and sent back for hearings on physical contact and notice compliance.
An EMS report from a motorcycle accident in the Bronx told two different stories about the same crash on the same page.
On one line, it noted the rider “almost collided with a car, causing him to panic and fall of his bike.” On another, it listed the dispatch reason as “Pedestrian Struck.”
A New York appellate court has now ruled that contradiction is enough to reopen a claim Progressive Direct Insurance Company tried to kill off for good.
The case centres on a motorcyclist who says an unknown vehicle struck his motorcycle in a hit-and-run. He filed an uninsured motorist claim and pushed for arbitration. Progressive asked the court to permanently block that arbitration, arguing the rider could not prove physical contact with another vehicle - a threshold requirement for hit-and-run claims under New York law.
Supreme Court, Bronx County, sided with Progressive and granted the permanent block in December 2025.
The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed that order on October 29, 2026.
The problem was the EMS report itself. One entry said “almost collided.” The dispatch code said “Pedestrian Struck.” The motorcyclist’s own sworn statement that an “unknown vehicle” “struck [his] motorcycle” only deepened the dispute.
In hit-and-run cases, the insured has to prove physical contact with another vehicle before arbitration can proceed. But where the evidence cuts both ways, the court held, the right move is a hearing to test the facts - not a permanent block that shuts the claim down entirely.
The court also flagged a second loose end: whether the motorcyclist met the policy’s 24-hour reporting requirement. The EMS report noted that police were already on scene when paramedics arrived, and the motorcyclist stated he gave identifying information to officers - but said he was “unsure why an NYPD report was never made.” Applying what it called “a very liberal interpretation” of the notice requirement, the appellate court found the lower court was wrong to treat the question as settled.
The case has been sent back for hearings on both points - whether contact actually happened and whether the reporting requirement was met.
For claims teams handling uninsured motorist disputes, the practical takeaway is clear: when first-responder records contradict themselves, a hit-and-run claim is unlikely to die at the threshold stage - no matter how strong the insurer’s initial position looked.
The decision is designated as uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
