Key Takeaway
Marina v Praetorian case analysis: NY Appellate Term rules on IME no-show appeals, establishing prima facie requirements for insurers and claimant defense strategies.
There have been an uptick in EUO and IME no-show appeals lately. The next few posts you could say are dedicated to these policy violation cases.
This one is from the Appellate Term, First Dept:
Marina v Praetorian Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51292(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2010)
“efendant established prima facie that it mailed the notices of the independent medical examinations (IMEs) to the assignors and that the assignors failed to appear for the IMEs (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 ). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue regarding the reasonableness of the requests or the assignors’ failure to attend the IMEs (see Inwood Hill Med. v General Assurance Co., 10 Misc 3d 18, 20 ).”
I remember writing the brief in Fogel, as a younger attorney. I never got credit for it, but there is a story behind it, which I am not going to publish here.
It also is nice to see Inwood v. General Assurance cited. That was a huge case when it was decided 5 years ago. It set in motion the Appellate Division’s holding in Stephen Fogel. While I am on the topic of no-fault history, those of you out there who complain about what the Appellate Term, Second Department has become, probably long for a return to the “pre-fogel” and “contemporary” days.
Related Articles
- Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- IME no-show victory
- IME No Show: Understanding Confusing Court Interpretations of Duplicate Mailing Requirements
- Triable issue of fact as to non-appearance?
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone several amendments affecting IME procedures, including potential changes to notice requirements, scheduling protocols, and standards for establishing prima facie cases of non-compliance. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent appellate decisions when handling IME no-show matters, as procedural requirements and evidentiary standards may have evolved significantly over the past 15+ years.
