Key Takeaway
Court ruling on EUO no-show defense requirements in NY no-fault cases, emphasizing timely scheduling letters and proper affidavits to toll claim periods.
Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v Progressive Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51334(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
“To raise a triable issue of fact based on the assignor’s failure to appear at scheduled EUOs, defendant was required to demonstrate that its initial and follow-up requests for verification were timely (see Insurance Department Regulations §§ 65-3.5 ; 65-3.6 ) and establish, by an affidavit of one with personal knowledge, that the assignor had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 ). Since defendant failed to establish that the EUO scheduling letters were timely mailed (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 ), defendant failed to demonstrate that the 30-day claim determination period (Insurance Department Regulations § 65-3.8) was tolled. As a result, defendant failed to establish that its denial of claim forms were timely and, thus, that it is not precluded from raising as a defense the failure of plaintiff’s assignor to appear for an EUO.”
I previously published a blog entry where I discussed the EUO time frames in great detail. At least, the court seems to finally be consistent here on what is necessary to prove the EUO no-show defense.
And then there is the dissent, with which I completely agree.
Related Articles
- Understanding EUO validity requirements from the Appellate Term
- Comprehensive guide to EUO scheduling letter timing requirements
- Personal knowledge requirements for EUO no-show cases
- EUO no-show case analysis and precedent
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post, New York’s no-fault regulations have undergone multiple amendments, particularly regarding EUO scheduling requirements, notice provisions, and claim determination timeframes under sections 65-3.5, 65-3.6, and 65-3.8. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law interpretations, as procedural requirements for establishing EUO no-show defenses may have been modified through subsequent regulatory updates.
