Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 197 published articles analyzing euo issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
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:
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
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.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More EUO issues Analysis
EUO No-Show: Attorney Affirmation Sufficient Despite Time Lapse Between No-Shows and Execution
Appellate Term reverses Civil Court, holding that an attorney's affirmation attesting to plaintiff's failure to appear at EUOs was sufficient despite.
Feb 25, 2026
EUO no-show – correct statement of law
Court ruling clarifies that insurers cannot enforce EUO requests sent more than 30 days after receiving claims, making late requests nullities under New York no-fault law.
May 22, 2021
Walking out of an EUO leads to a disclaimer and a whole lot more
Walking out of an EUO leads to disclaimer and coverage denial. Court rules insured who departed mid-examination breached policy conditions in NY no-fault case.
Jul 17, 2014
EUO – No need to highlight the information
New York court rules that EUO scheduling letters don't need to conspicuously highlight information, clarifying requirements under Insurance Department Regulations.
Oct 19, 2011
Dilemma and dogma
Court ruling on EUO timing requirements in NY no-fault cases - insurer failed to prove compliance with 15-day deadline for examination under oath notices.
Jun 30, 2018
Timely EUO viz GCL 25-a
Court decisions on EUO timing requirements under GCL 25-a when 10th day falls on Sunday, including analysis of follow-up request strategies.
Mar 21, 2016Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a euo issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
