Donde esta Unitrin?

In Vincent Medical Services (September 16, 2011), the Appellate Term, Second Department granted the insurer’s cross-motion. Its proof covered mailing the IME requests, the assignor’s failure to attend and timely mailing of denials. Jason questioned the opinion’s treatment of Unitrin.

Historical note: Vincent’s denial-mailing discussion is a 2011 Second Department ruling; Gaines (2025, First Department) addresses a proven IME coverage defense without a timely-disclaimer requirement, not address verification.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

Jason Tenenbaum’s original note (2011)

Vincent Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51718(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011).

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted an affidavit of an employee of Allegiance which sufficiently established that the IME requests had been timely mailed in accordance with Allegiance’s standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 ). Defendant also submitted an affidavit of the chiropractor/acupuncturist who was to perform the IMEs, which was sufficient to establish that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 ). In addition, an affidavit executed by defendant’s litigation examiner demonstrated that the claim denial forms, which denied the claims based on plaintiff’s assignor’s nonappearance at the IMEs, had been timely mailed pursuant to defendant’s standard office practices and procedures”

I like Unitrin.  It saddens me when it does not even earn “but see” treatment.  Note the cite to Westchester v. Lincoln.  I have yet to see a case entitled “Westchester v. Lincoln” or any case that Lincoln appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department that has helped the defense bar.  I think Lincoln should stop appealing cases to the Second Department.

What Unitrin actually concerned

Unitrin (2011) concerned the coverage consequence of missed, properly requested examinations and the exception to preclusion despite untimely denials. It did not announce a rule requiring carriers to telephone claimants or independently confirm where they receive mail.

Vincent accepted an Allegiance employee’s account of mailing practices, the scheduled practitioner’s proof of nonattendance and the litigation examiner’s denial-mailing evidence. Its citation to Westchester Medical Center v Lincoln General is the point of Jason’s contemporaneous archived comment.

The First Department’s Gaines decision (2025) again addressed the IME coverage defense and held a timely disclaimer unnecessary on its facts. That later authority helps explain the comparison without turning Vincent into a different decision. Review the applicable department and the proof submitted, rather than treating the two case names as interchangeable rules.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the IME no-show case directory, then compare:

• Compas v Praetorian: one untimely denial among eight claims
• Acupuncture Solutions: mailing proof and the bill-timing question
• Priority Medical: office-practice affidavits accepted
• Central Radiology: insurer confirmations and verification requests
• Parisien: no response to requests and a later objection

For review of a particular IME dispute, contact the office with the scheduling letters, mailing proof and relevant claim papers.