Key Takeaway
Master Arbitrator Dachs analyzes IDS v. Stracar on EUO compliance requirements, partial performance standards, and carrier response obligations in New York no-fault cases.
Putting aside certain disdain towards the Second Department punting the “absolute coverage” component of Unitrin and ATIC v. Lucas, the IDS case said that when carrier wants an EUO of whoemever, no is not a suitable answer. The case also spoke about “partial performance”, which probably means showing up to the EUO. I am not sure what needs to be answered to constitute partial performance, although answering relevant questions would seem to fit the bill.
The question that of course lingers, and is quite manifest is what happens when the provider says I will not show up because you did not do ………. or do not have ……….. and the carrier either says we stand by our demand or ignores the provider. Master Dachs said the following in Blank v. Geico, 412013060819
“Indeed, “It is well established that the failure to comply with the standard policy provision requiring disclosure by way of submission to an examination under oath, as often as may be reasonably required, as a condition precedent to performance of the promise to Indemnify, constitutes a material breach of the policy, precluding recovery of the policy proceeds.” IDS Property Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stracar Medical Services, P.C., 116 AD3d 1005 (2d Dept. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Insofar as applicant’s complaint that the Lower Arbitrator “Ignored the Insurance carrier’s failure to respond to the applicant’s … objection letters” is concerned, assuming, arguendo, that responses were required, the record before me demonstrates that adequate responses were given.”
Note: “assuming arguendo”. Read this how you want, but I think assuming arguendo leads to a certain result.
Related Articles
- Personal Knowledge Requirements for EUO Non-Appearances: NY Legal Standards
- Understanding EUO Denial: When Insurance Companies Can Substantiate Coverage Denials
- Second Department’s interpretation of absolute coverage requirements
- Walking out of an EUO leads to a disclaimer and a whole lot more
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 analysis of IDS v. Stracar and EUO compliance requirements, New York no-fault regulations and procedural requirements may have been amended, particularly regarding examination under oath protocols, provider objection procedures, and carrier response obligations. Practitioners should verify current Insurance Department regulations and recent appellate decisions interpreting EUO compliance and “partial performance” standards under current law.
