Key Takeaway
Nassau Supreme Court applies Unitrin precedent in no-fault case, clarifying burden of proof standards for IME no-show defenses in provider litigation.
In New York no-fault insurance litigation, courts have struggled with conflicting precedents regarding the burden of proof for Independent Medical Examination (IME) defenses. The tension between the Westchester/Lincoln and Unitrin standards has created uncertainty, particularly in Nassau County where different approaches have emerged depending on whether the insurance carrier is plaintiff or defendant.
This case represents a significant development in New York No-Fault Insurance Law practice, as it shows Nassau Supreme Court applying Unitrin even when the insurance carrier is in a defensive position. The decision provides valuable language for practitioners handling IME no-show cases and clarifies evidentiary standards that have long confused the no-fault bar.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
New York Methodist v. Country Wide, Sup Ct. Nassau Co. Index #: 3676/11
Nassau has been all over the place on the DJ front regarding the confusion between Westchester/Lincoln and Unitrin. Yet, when the carrier is a defendant, it always seemed that Nassau County Supreme Court would apply Westchester/Lincoln.
Here is a very recent case where that Court found Unitrin to be controlling precedent. The best line of the case is as follows: “laintiff’s simple argument that Defendant failed to prove that the notices were mailed to the assignor or that the assignor failed to appear at any of the scheduled IMEs is without merit.” I would use this language in all civil court opps.
Key Takeaway
This Nassau Supreme Court decision demonstrates a shift toward consistent application of Unitrin precedent regardless of the carrier’s procedural position. The court’s rejection of the plaintiff’s argument about mailing proof provides strong defensive language for insurance carriers facing IME-related challenges in no-fault litigation.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since 2012, New York courts have continued to grapple with IME defense standards, and subsequent appellate decisions may have further clarified or modified the application of Westchester/Lincoln versus Unitrin precedents in no-fault litigation. Practitioners should verify current judicial interpretations and any intervening appellate authority that may have resolved the burden of proof conflicts discussed in this post.
