Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 197 published articles analyzing euo 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.
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)
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.
“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.
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 2,600 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.
About This Topic
Examination Under Oath (EUO) Issues in No-Fault Law
The Examination Under Oath is one of the most frequently litigated issues in New York no-fault practice. Insurers use EUO requests to investigate claims, but the procedural requirements — timely scheduling, proper notice, personal knowledge affidavits for no-shows, and the distinction between conditions precedent and affirmative defenses — generate constant litigation. These articles analyze the case law governing when an EUO no-show justifies claim denial, what constitutes proper scheduling, and how courts evaluate insurer compliance with the regulatory framework.
197 published articles in EUO issues
Keep Reading
More EUO issues Analysis
EUO No-Show Proof in New York No-Fault: The Attorney Affirmation, the Time-Lapse Argument and GC Chiropractic v State Farm (2025)
GC Chiropractic v State Farm (App Term, 2d Dept 2025): an EUO no-show affirmation signed about three years later was not unworthy of belief. Rule and history.
Feb 25, 2026
EUO no-show – correct statement of law
Court ruling clarifies that insurers cannot enforce EUO requests sent more than 30 days after receiving claims, making late requests nullities under New York no-fault law.
May 22, 2021
Insurance Company EUO Requirements: When No Objective Basis is Necessary – New York No-Fault Law
Learn when NY insurance companies can demand EUOs without objective basis. Expert analysis of Actual Chiropractic v State Farm. Call 516-750-0595.
Oct 17, 2019
EUO no show is unconditional
Appellate Term reinforces that failing to appear for EUO is unconditional bar to coverage, rejecting Civil Court's attempt to allow second chance for medical provider.
Oct 27, 2016
EUO time-frame according to the Appellate Term Second Department
New York appellate court clarifies strict 15-day deadline for no-fault insurers to request EUOs, ruling that late scheduling letters are nullities under regulations.
Apr 14, 2015
Alrof Safeco made another sighting
Court rejects insurance company's EUO no-show motion due to defective affidavit lacking personal knowledge, highlighting critical evidentiary requirements in no-fault cases.
Jul 16, 2013Was 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 euo 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.
