Key Takeaway
Court ruling confirms that proper mailing procedures and attorney's personal knowledge can establish EUO no-shows, setting important precedent for no-fault insurance disputes.
Establishing EUO No-Shows: Mailing Procedures and Personal Knowledge
In New York’s no-fault insurance system, Examinations Under Oath (EUOs) serve as a critical tool for insurance companies to investigate claims. When assignors fail to appear for scheduled EUOs, insurers must prove both proper notice and actual non-appearance to successfully defend against subsequent lawsuits. The Olmeur decision demonstrates how courts evaluate this evidence and what documentation proves sufficient.
The case highlights two essential elements insurance companies must establish: that EUO scheduling letters were properly mailed according to standard office procedures, and that an attorney with personal knowledge can testify to the assignor’s failure to appear. This ruling provides valuable guidance for both insurers defending claims and medical providers pursuing EUO-related disputes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Olmeur Med., P.C. v Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 52031(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted an affirmation from the attorney who had been responsible for conducting the EUOs at issue. His affirmation established that the EUO scheduling letters had been mailed to the assignor in accordance with his law firm’s standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 ), and that, based on the attorney’s personal knowledge, the assignor had failed to appear for either of the duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 ; Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 130, 2013 NY Slip Op 50458 )”
Note a citing to Alrof v. Safeco…
Key Takeaway
The Olmeur decision confirms that insurance companies can successfully establish EUO no-shows through two key pieces of evidence: an attorney’s affirmation detailing standard mailing procedures and personal knowledge of the assignor’s failure to appear. The court’s citation to Alrof v. Safeco suggests this precedent continues to influence EUO enforcement cases.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, New York’s EUO procedures and notice requirements may have been modified through regulatory amendments or court decisions interpreting proper mailing procedures and personal knowledge standards. Practitioners should verify current Insurance Department regulations and recent appellate decisions regarding EUO scheduling notice requirements and acceptable forms of proof for establishing non-appearance.
