You are here: / / FAILURE OF NO-FAULT BENEFIT ASSIGNEE TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATIONS UNDER OATH...

FAILURE OF NO-FAULT BENEFIT ASSIGNEE TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATIONS UNDER OATH (EUO’S) REQUESTED BY THE CARRIER IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE CARRIER’S OBLIGATION TO PAY THE NO-FAULT CLAIMS WHERE COVERAGE HAS NOT BEEN TIMELY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peradotto, disagreeing with the First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant medical professional corporation’s failure to appear at examinations under oath (EUO’s) requested by plaintiff insurer (Nationwide) was not a defense to Nationwide’s obligation to pay no-fault claims submitted by defendant (where Nationwide had not timely disclaimed coverage):

Defendant is a medical professional corporation that was assigned claims for no-fault benefits by individuals who purportedly received treatment for injuries allegedly sustained in motor vehicle accidents. Defendant submitted bills for the services it purportedly rendered, along with the assignment of benefit forms, to the insurance carrier plaintiffs (hereafter, Nationwide) seeking reimbursement pursuant to the no-fault law and regulations (see Insurance Law art 51… ). As part of an investigation of the validity of the claims, Nationwide sought additional information and requested that defendant submit to EUOs. Despite Nationwide’s repeated requests, defendant failed to appear at any of the scheduled EUOs.

Thereafter, Nationwide commenced this declaratory judgment action alleging that, by failing to appear for properly scheduled and noticed EUOs, defendant “breached a material condition precedent to coverage” under the insurance policies and no-fault regulations. Nationwide moved for summary judgment declaring that, as a result of such breach, it was under no obligation to pay or reimburse any of the subject claims, and defendant cross-moved for, inter alia, summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Supreme Court subsequently granted the motion, and denied the cross motion. The court declared, among other things, that defendant breached a condition precedent to coverage by failing to appear at the scheduled EUOs and determined that Nationwide therefore had the right to deny all claims retroactively to the date of loss, regardless of whether it had issued timely denials.

… [D]efendant contends that the court erred in granting the motion because … an insurer is precluded from asserting a litigation defense premised upon nonappearance at an EUO in the absence of a timely denial of coverage and that Nationwide failed to meet its burden of establishing that it issued timely denials. We agree … . Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Jamaica Wellness Med., P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 07850, Fourth Dept 11-16-18

INSURANCE LAW (FAILURE OF NO-FAULT BENEFIT ASSIGNEE TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATIONS UNDER OATH (EUO’S) REQUESTED BY THE CARRIER IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE CARRIER’S OBLIGATION TO PAY THE NO-FAULT CLAIMS WHERE COVERAGE HAS NOT BEEN TIMELY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/NO-FAULT INSURANCE  (FAILURE OF NO-FAULT BENEFIT ASSIGNEE TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATIONS UNDER OATH (EUO’S) REQUESTED BY THE CARRIER IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE CARRIER’S OBLIGATION TO PAY THE NO-FAULT CLAIMS WHERE COVERAGE HAS NOT BEEN TIMELY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) (INSURANCE LAW, NO-FAULT, FAILURE OF NO-FAULT BENEFIT ASSIGNEE TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATIONS UNDER OATH (EUO’S) REQUESTED BY THE CARRIER IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE CARRIER’S OBLIGATION TO PAY THE NO-FAULT CLAIMS WHERE COVERAGE HAS NOT BEEN TIMELY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
UNDER CRITERIA RECENTLY ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO CONTEST MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY.
THE NONDOMICILIARY DID NOT HAVE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK; NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THIS TRUST LITIGATION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF AN ONCOMING CAR IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE WORDING OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL DID NOT RESTRICT THE APPEAL TO THE DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT RATHER INCLUDED THE GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT; THE DISSENTER DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
CPLR 214-c, Which Starts the Statute of Limitations Upon Discovery of the Injury, Applies Only to Toxic Torts—The Statute Does Not Apply to an Action Seeking Damages for the Allegedly Negligent Approval (by the Town) of a Defective Septic System
Petitioner Did Not Have Standing to Contest Negative SEQRA Finding/”Alienation of Parkland” and “Public Trust” Arguments Rejected
ANTISUBROGATION RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY TO THE EXTENT RECOVERY EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF THE RELEVANT POLICY.
Probationers Do Not Lose All Privacy and Fourth Amendment Rights; Condition that Probationer Waive His Fourth Amendment Rights and Consent to the Search of His Home Struck

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FOUR TRAMADOL PILLS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, PROMOTING PRISON... OWNER OF THE FARM AND HAY CONVEYOR OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS...