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.
Understanding EUO Requirements in No-Fault Insurance Cases
When insurance companies request examinations under oath (EUOs) to investigate claims, healthcare providers sometimes challenge whether the insurer has the contractual right to demand such examinations. A common defense strategy involves arguing that the insurance company must produce the actual policy language to prove EUO provisions exist.
However, New York courts have established clear precedent that makes this argument largely futile for accidents occurring after April 2002. The Appellate Term’s decision in Dream Acupuncture demonstrates how regulatory changes simplified this evidentiary burden for insurers, particularly in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases.
This ruling has significant implications for providers facing EUO demands, as it eliminates one potential procedural defense and underscores the importance of understanding when EUO objections may be futile versus when substantive challenges might succeed.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Dream Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51997(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.
“Contrary to plaintiff’s other argument on appeal, it was not defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the applicable policy condition contains a provision for using EUOs as a method of verifying claims. As we have previously noted, effective April 5, 2002, the mandatory personal injury endorsement contains a provision for EUOs (see Insurance Department Regulations § 65-1.1 ). The accident in question occurred on February 9, 2007. Since the policy in this case would have been issued after 2002, it would necessarily have contained a provision for EUOs, and, thus, defendant was not required to produce the policy to establish the existence of such a provision”
Yes, this is old already.
Key Takeaway
For any accident occurring after April 5, 2002, insurance companies are not required to produce policy documents to establish their right to conduct EUOs. The mandatory personal injury endorsement regulation ensures all policies issued after this date automatically contain EUO provisions, making policy production arguments ineffective in most modern no-fault cases.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone multiple amendments, including potential changes to EUO procedures, standardized policy provisions, and evidentiary requirements under Insurance Department Regulations § 65. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law developments, as procedural requirements for EUO motions and policy disclosure obligations may have been modified through subsequent regulatory updates or appellate decisions.
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 EUO issues Analysis
EUO No-Show: Attorney Affirmation Sufficient Despite Time Lapse Between No-Shows and Execution
Appellate Term reverses Civil Court, holding that an attorney's affirmation attesting to plaintiff's failure to appear at EUOs was sufficient despite.
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
EUO denial not vague or conclusory for not stating dates
Court rules EUO denial valid despite not specifying examination dates, rejecting plaintiff's argument that omission made denial vague or conclusory under New York no-fault law.
Apr 7, 2015
Discovery not necessary to adjudicate merits of EUO no-show defense
Court rules discovery unnecessary when challenging EUO no-show defense in NY no-fault cases. Appellate Term confirms proper mailing establishes valid denial.
May 16, 2013
New York EUO Requirements: When Examination Under Oath Demands Are Untimely
Learn NY EUO timing requirements and when examination under oath demands are untimely. Expert analysis of Zen Acupuncture case. Call 516-750-0595.
Aug 10, 2019
The dates of the EUO's do not need to be placed in the letters
NY court rules EUO scheduling letter dates need not be included in denial forms. Case law analysis on no-fault insurance EUO notice requirements.
Oct 13, 2016Was 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.
