Key Takeaway
Court ruling confirms insurers can deny no-fault claims when assignors fail to appear for properly noticed examinations under oath (EUOs).
Understanding EUO Requirements in No-Fault Insurance Cases
Examinations Under Oath (EUOs) are a critical component of New York No-Fault Insurance Law. When medical providers treat patients injured in motor vehicle accidents, they often receive assignments of the patient’s no-fault benefits. However, insurers maintain the right to examine assignors under oath to investigate claims before paying benefits.
The Bath Ortho Supply decision illustrates a fundamental principle: when an assignor fails to appear for a properly noticed EUO, insurers can successfully defend against claims for first-party benefits. This case reinforces established precedent while clarifying that EUO requirements extend beyond direct insureds to include assignors in the claims process.
Understanding these requirements is essential for medical providers pursuing no-fault claims, as EUO objections may be futile once proper notice has been given. The consequences of non-appearance can be severe, potentially resulting in complete claim denial.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Bath Ortho Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50271(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2012)
The defendant insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the action for first-party no-fault benefits by establishing that it properly mailed the notices for an examination under oath (EUO) to plaintiff’s assignor, and that the assignor failed to appear (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 , lv denied 17 NY3d 705 ; cf. Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 ).
A cf to Fogel and a nod to the proposition that correspondence sent to an assignor and an assignor only is sufficient to apply the rule of Unitrin.
More importantly, EUO’s apply to Unitrin.
Key Takeaway
The Bath Ortho Supply decision confirms that insurers can successfully defend no-fault claims when assignors fail to appear for properly noticed EUOs. The court’s reference to the Unitrin standard demonstrates that EUO no-show cases follow established precedent, making proper notice and documented non-appearance powerful defenses for insurers in summary judgment motions.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone multiple amendments affecting EUO procedures, including potential changes to notice requirements, timing provisions, and assignor examination protocols. Practitioners should verify current provisions in 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent appellate decisions, as procedural requirements for EUOs may have been modified through regulatory updates or court rulings in the intervening years.
