You are here: / / THE INSURER DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS FAILURE TO TIMELY REQUEST THAT THE INSURED...
, ,

THE INSURER DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS FAILURE TO TIMELY REQUEST THAT THE INSURED UNDERGO A PHYSICAL EXAM AND AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH; THE STAY OF ARBITRATION IN THIS UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS DISPUTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer, GEICO, should not have been granted a stay of arbitration in this uninsured-motorist-benefits dispute with its insured, Eser. GEICO did not explain its failure to timely request a physical exam and an examination under oath (EUO):

GEICO had ample time after being notified of Eser’s claim to seek a medical examination and an examination under oath, but failed to do so. Moreover, it denied the claim, apparently concluding that the medical records were sufficient to determine that Eser did not sustain a serious injury. GEICO offered no excuse for its failure to request a physical examination and an examination under oath. Instead, GEICO represented to the Supreme Court that it had requested the examinations, pointing to [three letters]. Contrary to GEICO’s assertion, however, it did not request examinations in those letters, but, rather, merely advised Eser that if it ultimately determined that the other vehicle was uninsured, it “may require [her] to submit to physical examinations and/or Examination(s) Under Oath” … . Since GEICO had ample time to seek this discovery of Eser, but unjustifiably failed to do so, it was not entitled to a stay of arbitration in order to conduct the examinations … . Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Eser, 2023 NY Slip Op 01999, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: Here the insurer in this uninsured-motorist-benefits dispute had ample time to request that the insured undergo a physical exam and an examination under oath and did not explain its failure to do so. The stay of arbitration should not have been granted.

 

You might also like
THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE PHONE NUMBER FOR THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES IN THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE RENDERED THE NOTICE FACIALLY DEFECTIVE; DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE TRUSTEES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR LACHES DEFENSES TO THE ACTION SEEKING AN ESTATE ACCOUNTING; THE TRUSTEES DID NOT OPENLY REPUDIATE THEIR FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE TIME DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN FOR EITHER DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
PROVISION IN MORTGAGE WHICH GAVE BORROWER RIGHT TO DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT DID NOT PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF BANK FROM ACCELERATING THE DEBT BY FILING A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
If the Accident Was Staged by the Insured, the Insurer Would Not Be Required to Cover a Party Injured In the Collision, Even If that Party Was Not Involved in the Staging
ALTHOUGH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IN DECEDENT’S NAME AFTER DECEDENT HAD DIED, THE ACTION WAS NOT A NULLITY AND WAS PROPERLY REVIVED WITHIN SIX MONTHS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a); SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH A CHILD WAS PRESENT IN THE HOME WHEN FATHER STRUCK HIS PREGNANT GIRLFRIEND, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CHILD SAW OR HEARD THE INCIDENT AND NO EVIDENCE THE CHILD WAS UPSET BY THE INCIDENT; THE NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT (OF THE THEN UNBORN CHILD) FINDINGS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BROKERAGE AGREEMENT DID NOT GIVE PLAINTIFF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE A LOAN ON DEFENDANT’S BEHALF; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION ON A LOAN PROCURED BY DEFENDANT WITHOUT PLAINTIFF’S ASSISTANCE; “EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO …” CRITERIA IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND 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

FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON HIS PARTICIPATION... PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS...