You are here: / / IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE CASE, THE INSURER REQUESTED AN EXAMINATION UNDER...
, ,

IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE CASE, THE INSURER REQUESTED AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) WITHOUT AFFORDING THE MEDICAL PROVIDER SPECIFIC, OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE INSURER (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this no-fault insurance case, determined the insurer did not provide the medical provider with objective justification for its request for an examination under oath (EUO). Summary judgment should not have been awarded to the insurer:

Although plaintiff timely requested an EUO and subsequently issued a timely denial … , the motion court erred in granting summary judgment. 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e) requires an EUO request be based on application of objective standards, and that the insurer must have a specific objective justification. Summary judgment is premature under CPLR 3212 where an insurer fails to provide a medical provider with its objective justification for requesting the EUO … . This Court has explained that the insurer’s reason for the EUO is essential for medical providers to oppose an insurer’s summary judgment motion, and that information is in the exclusive knowledge and control of the insurer … . Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Alicea, 2023 NY Slip Op 01474, First Dept 3-21-23

Practice Point: In a no-fault insurance matter, the insurer’s request for an examination under oath (EUO) must be supported by “specific objective justification.” Here the failure to afford the medical provider objective justification precluded summary judgment in favor of the insurer.

 

You might also like
THE HARASSMENT-RELATED SPEECH PROHIBITIONS IN THE ORDER OF PROTECTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT BUT THE PROVISION PROHIBITING RESPONDENT FROM DISCSUSSING THE PETITIONER OR THE FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING WAS STRUCK FROM THE ORDER OF PROTECTION AS UNNECESSARY (FIRST DEPT).
Jury’s Consulting a Dictionary Justified Mistrial
PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ATTEMPTING TO EMPTY A 300 POUND BIN INTO A DUMPSTER, FIVE TO SEVEN FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT).
Denial of “For Cause” Challenges to Jurors Who Said They Needed to Hear “Both Sides of the Story” Required Reversal
LONG-ARM JURISDICTION DID NOT REACH AN AUDITING FIRM IN THE UK AND CONVERSION CAUSES OF ACTION FAILED BECAUSE THE CONVERTED FUNDS WERE NOT IDENTIFIABLE AFTER THEY HAD BEEN INVESTED.
CPLR 7515, ENACTED IN 2018, DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO PROHIBIT MANDATORY ARBITRATION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, WHETHER DEFENDANT REGISTERED NURSE AND DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT GAVE PLAINTIFF THE APPROPRIATE DISCHARGE INSTRUCTIONS AFTER DISOVERING A LUMP IN PLAINTIFF’S BREAST CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTOR WHO COSIGNED THE PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT’S CHART SHOULD HAVE REVIEWED THE CHART (FIRST DEPT).
Safety Device Requirement in Industrial Code Was Specific Enough to Support Labor Law 241(6) Action Based Upon the Absence of a Safety Guard on a Tile Grinder

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

PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK TO SUPPORT LONG-ARM... VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192(2) (DWI) IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF VEHICLE...