Key Takeaway
NY appellate court upholds IME no-show defense when scheduling letters were properly addressed to insured's last known address and attorney received copies.
In New York no-fault insurance cases, proper notice of Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) is crucial for insurance carriers seeking to deny claims based on no-show defenses. The Appellate Term’s decision in Ranbow Supply of N.Y., Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. demonstrates how courts evaluate whether IME scheduling notices were properly sent when plaintiffs challenge the adequacy of the carrier’s mailing procedures.
This case highlights a common scenario where healthcare providers argue that they never received IME scheduling letters, claiming the insurance company failed to mail them to the correct address. The court’s analysis focuses on two key factors: whether the carrier used the address information provided by the insured, and whether the assignor’s attorney received proper notice of the scheduled examination.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Ranbow Supply of N.Y., Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51729(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“While plaintiff argues that defendant did not mail its IME scheduling letters to the correct address, defendant sufficiently demonstrated that it addressed the letters to plaintiff’s assignor, defendant’s insured, at the address provided to it by its insured. In addition, defendant demonstrated that copies of the IME scheduling letters had been addressed to, and received by, plaintiff’s assignor’s attorney (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 136, 2009 NY Slip Op 50294 ).”
This is another matter where it appears the NF-2 is the lodestar for determining the correct address to the mail the IME letters. The Great Wall case that is cited allows an IME leter to be sent to an attorney after the letter is sent to Assignor but prior to the IME, when notice is given a short time prior to the IME of representation of Assignor.
Key Takeaway
Insurance carriers can successfully defend against inadequate notice claims by demonstrating they used the address information provided by their insured on the application. Additionally, when an assignor’s attorney receives copies of IME scheduling letters, this strengthens the carrier’s position that proper notice was given, even if questions arise about the primary mailing address. The IME notice requirements remain focused on reasonable efforts rather than guaranteed delivery.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations governing IME notice requirements and no-show defenses may have been amended through regulatory updates or legislative changes. Practitioners should verify current notice provisions, mailing requirements, and procedural standards for IME scheduling under the most recent Insurance Department regulations and case law developments.
