Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 199 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.
In New York no-fault insurance litigation, insurance companies frequently rely on examinations under oath (EUOs) as a crucial tool for investigating potentially fraudulent claims. When claimants fail to appear for scheduled EUOs, insurers often believe they have a strong defense for denying coverage. However, a 2012 Appellate Term decision demonstrates that the foundation for such defenses must be properly established from the outset.
The case of Superior Oxygen & Ortho Supplies, Ltd. v Auto One Ins. Co. serves as a cautionary tale for insurance carriers who fail to follow proper procedures when scheduling EUOs. This decision underscores the importance of meticulous compliance with regulatory requirements, particularly the timing and proof of EUO scheduling notices. When insurers cut corners on these procedural steps, they risk losing what might otherwise be valid defenses, even when dealing with EUO no-shows or cases involving questionable claim submissions.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Superior Oxygen & Ortho Supplies, Ltd. v Auto One Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50348(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)
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.
“defendant failed to establish that the examination under oath (EUO) scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ) and that the 30-day claim determination period (see Insurance Department Regulations § 65-3.8) had been tolled. As a result, defendant failed to establish that its denial of claim forms were timely and, thus, that it is not precluded from raising the failure of plaintiff’s assignors to appear at the EUOs as a defense”
The case speaks for itself and the result should validate a more proactive method to handling these cases. Otherwise, why are you paying your attorneys to do these EUO’s?
Key Takeaway
This decision reinforces that insurance companies cannot simply rely on the fact that claimants failed to appear for EUOs. Proper documentation of timely mailing and compliance with regulatory deadlines is essential. Without establishing these foundational elements, insurers may find themselves precluded from asserting otherwise valid defenses, regardless of whether Allstate or other carriers face similar procedural challenges in New York no-fault insurance law cases.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations under 11 NYCRR § 65 have undergone several amendments affecting EUO procedures, timing requirements, and proof standards for scheduling notices. Additionally, appellate decisions over the past 14 years may have refined the procedural requirements for establishing proper EUO scheduling and the consequences of non-compliance. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law developments when handling EUO no-show situations and coverage denials.
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
Triable issue of fact as to non-appearance?
Learn about EUO and IME non-appearance defenses in New York no-fault insurance cases. Expert analysis of Island Life and Alas Lifespan decisions.
Jul 2, 2019
Mutual rescheduling in between two no shows – valid
Court ruling on EUO no-shows: mutual rescheduling between two missed examinations under oath still constitutes valid grounds for denial in New York no-fault cases.
Jul 13, 2016
Obligations of Assignee and Authorized entity
Key court ruling on EUO obligations for healthcare providers with assigned benefits or authorization to pay in New York no-fault insurance cases.
Mar 19, 2015
Personal knowledge became more personal
Court rules attorney affidavit lacking personal knowledge insufficient for EUO no-show summary judgment in New York no-fault case
Apr 6, 2013Was 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.
