Westchester v. Lincoln with a "cf" to Unitrin

Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) remain one of the most contentious areas in New York No-Fault Insurance Law. When an assignor fails to appear for a scheduled IME, insurers typically seek summary judgment to dismiss pending claims, arguing that attendance is a condition precedent to coverage. The tension between different appellate court decisions creates uncertainty for providers and insurers alike.

The foundational principle underlying IME requirements stems from Insurance Department Regulations § 65-1.1, which permits insurers to verify claimed injuries through independent medical evaluations. This regulatory framework grants carriers the right to condition payment of benefits upon an assignor’s compliance with reasonable examination requests. However, the appellate courts have diverged on whether strict compliance with IME scheduling automatically entitles insurers to summary dismissal of claims, or whether courts must engage in more nuanced factual analysis before granting such relief.

The Alrof decision discussed below highlights this ongoing judicial debate, particularly the conflict between the Westchester line of cases and the more provider-friendly Unitrin decision. While Westchester takes a strict approach to IME no-shows, Unitrin suggests courts should examine whether the insurer’s conduct contributed to the non-appearance. This judicial split continues to influence how courts handle cases where assignors fail to attend scheduled examinations.

Understanding this case law tension is critical for both plaintiff and defense practitioners. Insurance carriers rely on the condition precedent doctrine to limit their exposure to claims where medical verification cannot be obtained. Healthcare providers, conversely, argue that technical failures in scheduling procedures or insurer misconduct should prevent automatic dismissal of otherwise valid claims. The stakes are substantial: providers face complete loss of payment for rendered services, while insurers risk liability for claims they cannot properly investigate.

Case Background: The Alrof Dispute

In Alrof, Inc. v Nationwide Insurance Co., the plaintiff healthcare provider sought reimbursement for medical services rendered to an insured patient following an automobile accident. The insurance carrier moved for summary judgment, asserting that the assignor failed to appear for a scheduled IME, thereby breaching a condition precedent to the insurer’s payment obligation. The lower court granted the insurer’s motion, and the Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed on appeal.

The case presented a straightforward procedural scenario common in no-fault litigation: the insurer scheduled an IME in accordance with regulatory requirements, properly notified the assignor, and the assignor failed to appear without reasonable excuse. The provider challenged the dismissal, arguing that the insurer had not demonstrated full compliance with scheduling procedures or that equitable considerations should prevent automatic forfeiture of benefits. The Appellate Term rejected these arguments, holding that the condition precedent doctrine barred recovery once non-appearance was established.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Alrof, Inc. v Nationwide Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51451(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)

“Since an assignor’s appearance at an IME “is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy” (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722; see also Insurance Department Regulations § 65-1.1), defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s second and third causes of action (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 ; but see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559 ).”

I can hear frequent commenter Mitch Lustig’s voice right now discussing his disdain towards Unitrin and explaining why Central General v. Chubb does not support Unitrin.

Legal Significance: The Westchester-Unitrin Divide

The Alrof decision’s citation methodology reveals the ongoing appellate tension surrounding IME no-show cases. By citing Westchester Medical Center v Lincoln General Insurance Co. as primary authority while relegating Unitrin Advantage Insurance Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC to a “but see” parenthetical, the court signaled adherence to the stricter approach while acknowledging contrary precedent.

Westchester established that IME attendance constitutes an absolute condition precedent to insurer liability. Under this framework, once an insurer demonstrates proper scheduling and non-appearance, summary judgment follows as a matter of law without requiring deeper factual inquiry into the insurer’s conduct or scheduling practices. This bright-line rule provides insurers with significant leverage in enforcement of their verification rights.

Conversely, Unitrin suggested that courts should examine whether the insurer’s own actions contributed to the assignor’s failure to appear. This approach considers factors such as scheduling convenience, adequacy of notice, and whether the insurer engaged in conduct that might excuse non-compliance. The Unitrin framework creates more fact-intensive litigation but arguably prevents insurers from manufacturing technical defaults through unreasonable scheduling practices.

The Second Department’s continued adherence to Westchester demonstrates reluctance to adopt the more nuanced Unitrin analysis. This creates a predictable defense advantage in cases within the Second Department’s jurisdiction, while leaving open the possibility that other departments might adopt different approaches. The appellate split generates forum-shopping incentives and creates inconsistent outcomes based on geographic accident location rather than substantive merit.

Practical Implications for No-Fault Practitioners

Defense counsel handling no-fault cases should prioritize rigorous documentation of IME scheduling procedures. Proof of proper mailing through affidavits complying with CPLR 4518(a), retention of certified mail receipts, and evidence of address verification all become critical to establishing the prima facie case for summary judgment. Under the Westchester framework prevailing in the Second Department, once these procedural elements are demonstrated, the burden shifts to plaintiffs to establish reasonable excuse for non-appearance.

Healthcare providers and their counsel must recognize that IME scheduling letters create immediate compliance obligations. Failure to respond, even when scheduling may seem inconvenient or burdensome, risks complete forfeiture of payment for services already rendered. The condition precedent doctrine operates harshly: unlike other affirmative defenses that might reduce recovery proportionally, IME non-appearance typically results in total dismissal of pending claims.

Practitioners should also monitor developments in other appellate departments where Unitrin might gain traction. The First Department, historically more plaintiff-friendly in procedural matters, could potentially adopt the Unitrin framework in future cases. Strategic considerations regarding venue and removal may turn on these appellate divisions’ divergent approaches to IME enforcement.

Key Takeaway

The Alrof decision reinforces that IME attendance is a condition precedent to insurer liability, following the Westchester precedent. However, the court’s citation to Unitrin with a “but see” signal acknowledges the ongoing appellate division split on whether substantiated no-shows automatically entitle insurers to summary judgment or require deeper factual analysis.

For defense practitioners, Alrof confirms the viability of IME-based dismissals in the Second Department when proper scheduling procedures are followed. For plaintiff’s counsel, the decision underscores the critical importance of ensuring assignor compliance with IME requests, as the condition precedent doctrine operates as an absolute bar to recovery regardless of the underlying merit of medical claims. The continuing judicial tension between formalistic and equitable approaches to IME enforcement suggests this area of law remains subject to further appellate refinement.

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 analysis, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations, including the IME provisions under Insurance Department Regulations § 65-1.1, may have been substantially revised through regulatory amendments and updated fee schedules. Additionally, appellate court decisions since 2011 may have further clarified or modified the judicial treatment of IME non-appearance cases and the application of the Westchester/Unitrin framework. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law developments when handling IME-related disputes.

Related Articles

• “I think Unitrin was wrongly decided”
• A judge in Supreme Nassau on a standard no-fault matter applies Unitrin
• IME no show results in summary dismissal