Key Takeaway
Court rules insurance policy not required in IME default motions under NY no-fault law. Apollo Chiropractic case establishes prima facie showing requirements.
Apollo Chiropractic Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50911(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2010)
As Civil Court correctly concluded, defendant made a prima facie showing both that two separate requests for an independent medical examination (“IME”) of plaintiff’s assignor were duly mailed to the assignor and that the assignor failed to appear for the examination on either of the dates scheduled pursuant to the requests. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue. Therefore, defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Inwood Hill Med., P.C. v General Assur. Co., 10 Misc 3d 18 ; see also Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 ).
We note that, contrary to Civil Court’s determination, defendant was not required to produce the applicable automobile insurance policy in order to establish that the mandatory personal injury endorsement included an IME provision (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1),since the policy “shall be construed as if such provision[] embodied therein” (Insurance Law § 5103).
Would we have had the same outcome if the defense was the violation of the optional intoxication exclusion or a violation of another optional exclusion? I think not. But, on the basis of an IME or EUO defense, this decision is correct.
Related Articles
- Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- IME No Show: Understanding Confusing Court Interpretations of Duplicate Mailing Requirements
- IME Notification Requirements in New York No-Fault Cases: Address Matching Rules
- A court in Nassau has applied Unitrin through a front door and back door channel
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations under 11 NYCRR Part 65 have undergone multiple amendments, and procedural requirements for establishing IME defaults may have been modified. Additionally, case law interpreting Insurance Law § 5103 and the sufficiency of prima facie showings for IME non-appearance has continued to evolve. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent appellate decisions when addressing IME default defenses.
