Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing ime issues coverage, with 149 published articles analyzing ime issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
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)
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
“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.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More IME issues Analysis
Simple addition is insufficient
Jodi Jacobs's 2021 mixed appeal: four claims dismissed, one fee balance unresolved, and why the schedule alone did not prove correct code use.
May 22, 2021
NF-3 is the operative document
Unitrin Direct v Beckles: the NF-3, timely IME requests and two missed examinations. Distinguish the request deadline from the examination date.
Mar 22, 2021
IME no-show not sustained
Court rules IME no-show defense fails when insurer didn't schedule exam within required 30-day timeframe under NY regulations 11 NYCRR 65-3.5.
Feb 27, 2018
Maya failed to prove mailing of the IME scheduling letters
Sharp View denied Maya's summary judgment motion for insufficient mailing proof. The ruling did not award benefits or require certified mail.
Nov 28, 2015
IME no-show upheld based upon DJ case law **correction**
Court upholds IME no-show defense using declaratory judgment case law precedent in New York no-fault insurance litigation, demonstrating retroactive claim denial rights.
Feb 28, 2014
IME no-show –> Necesity to issue timely disclaimer
Four separate 2011 decisions granted insurers summary judgment with timely-denial proof. Compare their results with the First Department's Unitrin line.
Oct 19, 2011Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a ime issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
