Key Takeaway
Court rules EUO scheduling letter must identify specific person being requested for examination or lose toll benefit under NY Insurance Regulation 65-3.6(b).
Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v Nationwide Ins., 2013 NY Slip Op 51746(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“Defendant demonstrated that, on November 19, 2009, prior to its receipt of the claim forms at issue, it had mailed a letter scheduling an EUO for December 4, 2009 to plaintiff’s assignor. (It is noted defendant has established that all mailings in this case were done in accordance with its standard office practices and procedures [see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 (2008); Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 (App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007)]). Consequently, a toll of defendant’s time to pay or deny the claims at issue went into effect at the time they were submitted.”
“However, defendant was also required, at the same time it mailed its final EUO scheduling letter, to inform plaintiff of the reasons why the claim was delayed “by identifying in writing the missing verification and the party from whom it was requested” (Insurance Department Regulations [*2] § 65-3.6 ). As argued by plaintiff on appeal, defendant’s December 11, 2009 letter to plaintiff failed to specifically identify the party from whom the EUO had been requested. Since defendant failed to demonstrate that it had complied with Insurance Department Regulations (NYCRR) § 65-3.6 (b), it lost the benefit of the toll. As a result, defendant failed to demonstrate that its denial of claim form had been timely mailed, and it was therefore not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.”
The Court is holding that 65-3.6(b) contains a more rigorous standard in requiring that the verification request to the provider state in the letter the person who the carrier is seeking to depose. Otherwise, the EUO toll is invalid.
Related Articles
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
- EUO letter need not be in large font – ADA litigation here we come
- Validity of EUO, Appellate Term, 2d Dept: Take two
- Must a carrier demonstrate that a deponent willfully failed to attend EUO’s in order to substantiate this defense?
- So what did the Second Department mean?
Legal Update (February 2026): The Insurance Department regulations cited in this 2013 decision, particularly § 65-3.6 regarding EUO scheduling requirements and verification notices, may have been amended since publication. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and case law developments regarding tolling requirements and mandatory disclosures in EUO correspondence.
