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
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ARRAIGNED ON A SPECIAL INFORMATION CONCERNING A PRIOR CONVICTION PRIOR TO JURY SELECTION, THE STATUTE REQUIRES ARRAIGNMENT AFTER JURY SELECTION, THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER (FIRST DEPT).
WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTENT OF THE WAIVER WAS ERRONEOUS; NO ASSURANCE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHTS WAIVED BY GUILTY PLEA AND APPELLATE RIGHTS.
CONVERSION, REPLEVIN AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
Preliminary Injunction Should Not Have Been Granted—Petitioners Did Not Show a Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Unsafe Access to Roof Supported Summary Judgment
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, MAKESHIFT LADDER SLID OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED BOTH DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, EVIDENCE ELICITED CAN NOT BE USED AT SECOND TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE ELEVATOR COMPANY, BY CONTRACT, HAD COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE; THEREFORE THE BUILDING OWNER AND MANAGER WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THEM IN THIS RES IPSA LOQUITUR ELEVATOR-MALFUNCTION-ACCIDENT CASE (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

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...