You are here: / / FAILURE TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS SET UP BY NO-FAULT CARRIER...

FAILURE TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS SET UP BY NO-FAULT CARRIER IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE TO COVERAGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined no-fault claimants’ failure to attend independent medical examinations (IME’s) was a absolute defense to coverage:

When an individual submits a personal injury claim for motor vehicle no-fault benefits, the insurance company may request that the individual submit to an IME, and if the individual fails to appear for that IME, it “constitutes a breach of a condition precedent vitiating coverage” … . Here, plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the letters sent to each claimant notifying them about the date, time, and location of the initially scheduled IME and a second scheduled IME and affidavits of service for these letters. Plaintiff also submitted affidavits from each medical professional assigned to conduct the scheduled IME, with each stating that the medical professional was in his or her office at the date and time of the scheduled IME, the respective claimant failed to appear, the appointment was kept open until the end of the day, and at the end of the day, the medical professional filled out the affidavit acknowledging the nonappearance.

Because Hereford sent the notices scheduling the IMEs prior to the receipt of each of the claims, the notification requirements for verification requests under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 and 65-3.6 do not apply … . Furthermore, plaintiff was not required “to demonstrate that the claims were timely disclaimed since the failure to attend medical exams was an absolute coverage defense” … . Hereford Ins. Co. v Lida’s Med. Supply, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03226, First Dept 5-3-18

​INSURANCE LAW (FAILURE TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS SET UP BY NO-FAULT CARRIER IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE TO COVERAGE (FIRST DEPT))/NO-FAULT INSURANCE (FAILURE TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS SET UP BY NO-FAULT CARRIER IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE TO COVERAGE (FIRST DEPT))/INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS (IME)  (FAILURE TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS SET UP BY NO-FAULT CARRIER IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE TO COVERAGE (FIRST DEPT))/IME (FAILURE TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS SET UP BY NO-FAULT CARRIER IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE TO COVERAGE (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
THE NYC HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT OF 2019 PART I, WHICH IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS ON A LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO REFUSE TO RENEW A RENT-STABILIZED LEASE, DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS HOLDOVER PROCEEDING WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE LAW WAS ENACTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH SHE TRIPPED AND FELL, THE FALL OCCURRED WITHIN THE 15-DAY GRACE PERIOD FOR THE NOTICE THE CITY DID RECEIVE, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED.
AMENDMENT TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WHICH IMPOSED LIABILITY UPON INSURERS FOR REOPENED CASES PREVIOUSLY COVERED BY THE SPECIAL FUND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON A LADDER WHEN THE DEFECTIVE GRINDER INJURED HIM, THE LADDER DID NOT FAIL AND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER THE DEFECTIVE GRINDER PRESENTED A SAFETY ISSUE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 241(6) AND THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE EVEN IF THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE THE WORKSITE (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE FIRST PRESENTED IN REPLY; PLAINTIFF WAS COLLATERALY ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY AND COGNITIVE DISORDER BY THE RULING IN HIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASE (FIRST DEPT).
Fact that a Sidewalk Is Smooth (Inherently Slippery) or Slippery When Wet Is Not an Actionable Defect
ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFIC CONTRACT WAS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT, THE NATURE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BY REFERENCE TO THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND NYC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PERMITS (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THEIR WITNESS’S PLANS TO VACATION OUT OF THE COUNTRY, THE WITNESS’S ABSENCE WAS NOT AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE JUSTIFYING AN EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE INFORMED WIFE OF HER RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL WHEN... FEDERAL RISK RETENTION GROUP (RRG) LAW PREEMPTS NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S...