Giant doctor with umbrella walking through Manhattan

NEWS

How Could New York’s S4964 Affect Hard to Place Medical Malpractice Accounts?

May 18, 2026

New York’s S4964 could affect hard-to-place medical malpractice accounts by making it easier for certain physician, dental, and hospital risks to reach the excess line market.

The bill would not eliminate admitted-market placement requirements. It would remove a specific procedural barrier that currently requires excess line brokers to obtain a declination from the Medical Malpractice Insurance Pool before placing certain primary malpractice coverage in the excess line market.

For retail agents, this is a market-access issue. If enacted, S4964 could create more flexibility for accounts that do not fit standard admitted appetite, but it would also increase the importance of careful wholesale placement, documentation, and form review.

‍

The bill targets a specific placement bottleneck

S4964 is aimed at the MMIP declination requirement, not at the broader structure of New York medical malpractice insurance.

Under current law, excess line brokers must obtain a declination from the Medical Malpractice Insurance Pool before certain primary medical malpractice risks can be placed with an excess line insurer. The sponsor memo says MMIP generally does not decline these risks except in rare circumstances, which has the practical effect of limiting access to the excess line market.

That matters because the hardest accounts are often the ones most likely to need broader market access. A physician with prior claims, a difficult specialty, a coverage gap, or a non-standard practice profile may need options beyond a conventional admitted renewal.

‍

The effect would be most relevant for difficult risks

S4964 would likely matter most for accounts that are already constrained.

The clearest examples include physicians, dentists, or facilities with claims history, unusual procedures, difficult venue exposure, lapsed coverage, prior cancellations, or operations that do not fit a standard carrier’s appetite. These are not always uninsurable risks. They are often risks that require a more specialized underwriting conversation.

Western Summit’s role in this kind of environment is not simply to find “another quote.” The value is in knowing which markets may consider the risk, what documentation is needed, and whether proposed terms actually solve the placement problem.

Our team is your team.

Get a quote

Excess line access would not remove placement discipline

More access to excess line markets would not mean looser placement standards.

Even if S4964 becomes law, excess line brokers would still need to conduct the required diligent search of the licensed market before placing coverage with a non-admitted insurer. The change would be about whether MMIP can continue to function as a practical gatekeeper to excess line placement.

That distinction is important for agents. The bill could widen the available market, but it would not turn complex MPL placements into routine submissions.

‍

Coverage flexibility would come with tradeoffs

Excess line coverage can offer flexibility, but agents would need to evaluate terms carefully.

Non-admitted markets may be able to consider risks, structures, limits, or forms that admitted carriers will not. That flexibility can be valuable for difficult medical professional liability accounts.

At the same time, agents should pay close attention to:

Defense costs inside or outside limits
Consent-to-settle language
Retroactive dates
Prior acts treatment
Exclusions and sublimits
Entity coverage
Provider scheduling
Insolvency protection limitations
Claim reporting provisions

For a physician or facility, the practical question is not just whether coverage is available. It is whether the policy terms match the actual exposure.

‍

New York premium pressure makes the bill more relevant

New York’s broader MPL environment makes S4964 more than a technical insurance bill.

Recent AMA data found that most reported New York medical liability premiums increased in 2025. That does not prove S4964 will become law, and it does not mean every New York account is distressed. But it does show why market access is an active concern for physicians and agents working in the state.

When premiums rise and admitted appetite tightens, procedural barriers to alternative market access become more important. That is why this bill belongs in a placement conversation, not just a legislative update.

‍

The practical takeaway

S4964 could give New York agents and insureds a more realistic path to excess line options for certain difficult medical malpractice placements.

The bill would not replace admitted markets, eliminate MMIP, or make every risk a surplus lines candidate. Its significance is narrower and more practical: it could reduce a placement bottleneck for accounts that need specialty-market consideration. For retail agents, the value will depend on disciplined submissions, careful form review, and access to wholesale partners who understand hard-to-place MPL risks.