Key Takeaway
Court rejects insurance company's EUO no-show motion due to defective affidavit lacking personal knowledge, highlighting critical evidentiary requirements in no-fault cases.
Understanding EUO No-Show Requirements in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
When insurance companies seek to deny no-fault benefits based on a claimant’s failure to appear for an Examination Under Oath (EUO), they must meet strict evidentiary standards. The foundation of any successful no-show motion rests on proper documentation by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance. This requirement, while seemingly straightforward, continues to trip up insurers who submit defective affidavits.
The case of Bright Med. Supply Co. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. serves as another reminder that courts will not accept shoddy documentation in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases. This decision follows a pattern of judicial scrutiny regarding EUO objections and procedural requirements that has become increasingly important for both insurers and claimants to understand.
The stakes are particularly high because discovery rights can be waived when proper objections aren’t lodged, making it crucial for all parties to understand these foundational evidentiary requirements.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Bright Med. Supply Co. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51123(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“Because defendant failed to submit proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff for the EUOs in question, defendant’s motion was properly denied”
How bad was the affidavit of no-show?
Key Takeaway
This case underscores the fundamental principle that insurance companies cannot rely on hearsay or inadequate documentation when seeking to deny benefits based on EUO non-compliance. The affidavit must come from someone who personally witnessed or has direct knowledge of the nonappearance, not from someone who simply compiled records or heard about it secondhand. This pattern of rejected no-show motions demonstrates the courts’ commitment to protecting claimants’ rights through strict adherence to evidentiary standards.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, New York’s no-fault regulations and EUO procedural requirements may have been modified through regulatory amendments or court rule changes. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding personal knowledge requirements for EUO no-show documentation and any updated evidentiary standards that may affect motion practice in no-fault cases.
