Key Takeaway
Court confirms insurer's summary judgment when assignor failed to appear at both IME and EUO after proper notice, citing Unitrin precedent for no-fault claims.
Unitrin has created this vacuum where the failure to control ones Assignor has spelled unabated doom to many a medical clinic. Imagine having this conversation during that crazy period when the law was “the failure to attend an IME rebuts the presumption of medical necessity?” and the App. Term 1st Dept did everything in the power to avoid ruling on the merits of these cases?
(The commentator Captain America would probably think that it is unconstitutional to demand an innocent Assignor to be deposed and examined in accordance with the insurance policy upon which she is either the NI or the third-party beneficiary)
Dowd v Praetorian Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 51160(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 timely and properly mailed the notices for independent medical examinations (IMEs) and examinations under oath (EUOs) 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 ; cf. Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 ). In opposition, plaintiff did not specifically deny the assignor’s nonappearance or otherwise raise a triable issue with respect thereto, or as to the mailing or reasonableness of the underlying notices (see Unitrin at 560).”
Related Articles
- Attorney statements confirming non-attendance are sufficient for EUO defense
- Understanding when EUO denials can be substantiated by insurance companies
- How failure to attend IMEs can void coverage under Court of Appeals precedent
- First Department ruling on IME no-show cases and letter sufficiency
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since 2012, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone significant revisions, including amendments to IME and EUO notice requirements, scheduling procedures, and standards for establishing non-cooperation defenses. The regulatory framework governing assignor obligations and procedural requirements for examinations may have been substantially modified. Practitioners should verify current provisions in 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent appellate decisions regarding notice adequacy and non-appearance consequences.
