You are here: / / AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) CAN BE REQUESTED BY THE NO-FAULT INSURER...

AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) CAN BE REQUESTED BY THE NO-FAULT INSURER BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVES A CLAIM FORM FROM THE MEDICAL PROVIDER.

The First Department, over a dissent, in a no-fault insurance case, determined plaintiff insurer's motion for summary judgment (dismissing the provider's claim for first-party no-fault benefits) based upon plaintiff's insured's (Manoo's) failure to appear for three scheduled examinations under oath (EUO's) should have been granted. The court held that an EUO can be requested at any time, and the fact that the first EUO was requested before the insurer received a claim form from the provider was of no consequence:

The record establishes that plaintiff requested Manoo's initial EUO by letter dated February 3, 2012. Although [the provider's] NF-3 form is dated February 7, 2012, plaintiff was entitled to request the EUO prior to its receipt thereof … . The notification requirements for verification requests under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 and 65-3.6 do not apply to EUOs that are scheduled prior to the insurance company's receipt of a claim form … . Mapfre Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Manoo, 2016 NY Slip Op 04446, 1st Dept 6-9-16

INSURANCE LAW (AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) CAN BE REQUESTED BY THE NO-FAULT INSURER BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVES A CLAIM FORM)/NO-FAULT INSURANCE (AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) CAN BE REQUESTED BY THE NO-FAULT INSURER BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVES A CLAIM FORM)

You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEYS HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO BIND DEFENDANTS TO THE OPEN-COURT STIPULATED SETTLEMENT OF $8,875,000; IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS RATIFIED THE STIPULATION BY FAILING TO TIMELY OBJECT TO IT (FIRST DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH PURPORTED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION REFERRED TO UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPRODUCED RECORDS AND THEREFORE LACKED ANY PROBATIVE VALUE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED ON DEBRIS IN A WALKWAY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYCRR IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION, HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE FALL OCCURRED OUTSIDE THE ENTRANCE TO A SHANTY, THE NYCRR PROVISION WHICH PERTAINS TO PASSAGEWAYS WAS NOT APPLICABLE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL WARRANTED THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ORDERING A NEW TRIAL (AFTER THE VERDICT) IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
THE PHOTO ARRAY WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE; THE VICTIM WAS FIXATED ON THE UNIQUE WHITE AND BLACK PATTERN ON THE SHIRT WORN BY THE ROBBER; IN THE PHOTO ARRAY A SHIRT WITH A BLACK AND WHITE DESIGN WAS VISIBLE IN THE DEFENDANT’S PHOTO, BUT THE FILLERS WERE ALL WEARING SOLID COLOR SHIRTS (SECOND DEPT).
EXPERT EVIDENCE IMPROPERLY PRECLUDED, NEW TRIAL BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR DE FACTO MERGER OF NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS FASHIONED BY THE COURT.
PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN A CEILING TILE DROPPED, THE LADDER WIGGLED, AND PLAINTIFF FELL; PLANTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE LADDER WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE (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

UNCLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS. EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED; NOTICES OF MANDATORY MEETINGS REGARDING WORK-REQUIREMENTS...