Key Takeaway
Court ruling clarifies that mutual EUO rescheduling before the original date doesn't constitute a no-show, but insurers must still provide three examination opportunities.
Insurance companies frequently attempt to deny no-fault claims based on an insured person’s alleged failure to appear at examinations under oath (EUOs). However, the procedural nuances surrounding EUO scheduling can significantly impact whether a denial is justified. Understanding when rescheduling constitutes a legitimate accommodation versus a missed appointment is crucial for both insurers and practitioners in New York No-Fault Insurance Law.
The distinction becomes particularly important when parties mutually agree to reschedule before the original examination date. Courts have established clear guidelines about what constitutes an actual “no-show” versus a legitimate scheduling change, which can determine whether an insurer has grounds to deny coverage.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 52005(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“Defendant denied the claim at issue based upon the alleged failure by plaintiff’s assignor to appear at duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). However, according to the affirmation submitted by defendant’s counsel, the initial EUO had been rescheduled by mutual agreement, prior to the date it was to occur. A mutual rescheduling, which occurs prior to the date of the scheduled EUO, does not constitute a failure to appear”
The mutual rescheduling trap. It is alright to reschedule prior to the no-show date, but make sure you afford the EIP a third attempt to attend the EUO/IME
Key Takeaway
Courts will not treat mutual rescheduling as a “no-show” when both parties agree to change the examination date before the original appointment. However, insurers must still provide the required three opportunities for the insured to attend the EUO or IME. This prevents insurers from using legitimate scheduling accommodations as grounds for claim denials while maintaining procedural fairness for all parties involved.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 analysis, New York no-fault EUO procedures may have been modified through regulatory amendments or updated Department of Financial Services guidance. The mutual rescheduling principles discussed remain foundational, but practitioners should verify current procedural requirements and notice provisions under the most recent No-Fault Law regulations and case law developments.
