Key Takeaway
Legal case analysis of Reynolds v Ferrante where a no-fault insurance IME chiropractor injured a patient's knee, exploring insurer liability for contractor negligence.
Reynolds v Ferrante, 2013 NY Slip Op 04154 (4th Dept. 2013)
“Plaintiff Robert A. Reynolds (plaintiff) had an insurance policy with Geico and sustained injuries to his neck, back and left shoulder in a motor vehicle accident. Geico scheduled a no-fault examination for plaintiff with a chiropractor through defendant SCS Support Claim Services, Inc. (SCS), an independent contractor for Geico. During the course of that examination, plaintiff’s left knee was injured allegedly as a result of the chiropractor’s manipulation of the knee. Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that Geico was negligent in the selection, instruction and supervision of SCS and the chiropractor.”
“Geico contends that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion because it cannot be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor. We reject that contention. It is well settled that a person who hires an independent contractor may be held liable for negligence in selecting, instructing or supervising that independent contractor”
“We conclude that the amended complaint is sufficient to advise the court and Geico of the transactions and occurrences on which plaintiffs based their claim and plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded a cause of action against Geico based upon the alleged negligent selection, instruction and supervision of SCS and the chiropractor”
So in order to prevail against Geico, Plaintiff has to prove that they knew or should have known that the IME chiropractor had tendencies to perform inappropriate IMEs? It is an interesting lawsuit to say the least
Related Articles
- Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- IME Diagnostic Testing Rights: What NY Claimants Need to Know
- IME Reports Are Entitled to Qualified Privilege Against Defamation Claims
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations governing Independent Medical Examinations have been subject to various amendments, including updates to IME scheduling procedures, examination protocols, and insurer oversight requirements. Practitioners handling IME-related negligence claims should verify current regulatory provisions under 11 NYCRR Part 65 and any intervening case law that may have refined the standards for insurer liability in the selection and supervision of independent contractors.
