Key Takeaway
Court ruling confirms no coverage after injured defendant's IME no-show, with Appellate Division requiring minimal mailing affidavit standards for no-fault cases.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Solorzano, 2013 NY Slip Op 05179 (1st Dept. 2013)
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered January 10, 2013, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against defendant New York Spine Specialists (NYSS) and for a default judgment against the non-appearing defendants, and granted NYSS and defendant Advanced Orthopaedics’ motion to dismiss the complaint as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as against NYSS and, upon a search of the record, Advanced, and it is declared that there is no coverage with respect to the injured defendant’s accident under plaintiff’s policy, to deny NYSS and Advanced’s motion to dismiss”
“ demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment by submitting competent evidence of the mailing of the notices scheduling the injured defendant’s independent medical examinations and of her failure to appear (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559 , lv denied 17 NY3d 705 ). Under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to dismiss this action because of [*2]two pending Civil Court actions, particularly in favor of Advanced, which had defaulted in this action.”
I can sleep better knowing that Unitrin is not going away anytime soon. From my vantage point, I have an idea of the the bare minimum of the what the Appellate Division requires to be included in mailing and “no-show” affidavits. Tellingly, it is not as much as some of these would like it to be. Also, the non-defaulting Answering Defendant vigorously fought the no-show issue.
Related Articles
- Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- IME Notification Requirements in New York No-Fault Cases: Address Matching Rules
- IME No Show: Understanding Confusing Court Interpretations of Duplicate Mailing Requirements
- Triable issue of fact as to non-appearance?
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations may have been amended, particularly regarding IME scheduling procedures, notice requirements, and summary judgment standards in coverage denial cases. Practitioners should verify current provisions of the Insurance Law and applicable regulations when handling IME non-compliance matters.
