Key Takeaway
SP Chiropractic v. IDS shows another court citing Alrof's flawed requirement for personal knowledge proof of EUO no-shows, highlighting ongoing insurance defense failures.
Understanding EUO No-Show Requirements in New York No-Fault Cases
The ongoing debate over what constitutes sufficient proof of a plaintiff’s failure to appear at an Examination Under Oath (EUO) continues to create challenges in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases. The recent SP Chiropractic decision demonstrates how courts continue to apply the controversial Alrof standard, even when insurance companies repeatedly submit inadequate documentation.
EUO proceedings are a critical component of no-fault insurance claims, where insurers can examine claimants under oath about their injuries and treatment. When a plaintiff fails to appear for these examinations, insurers must provide proper documentation to support their denial of coverage. However, as this case illustrates, many insurance companies struggle with meeting the personal knowledge requirements that courts have established.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
SP Chiropractic, P.C. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50952(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
Because defendant failed to submit proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff for the EUOs in question, defendant’s motion was properly denied (see Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 130, 2013 NY Slip Op 50458 ; Bright Med. Supply Co. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 130, 2013 NY Slip Op 51123 ).”
Seems to be the same cohorts that draw Alrof citations. In my mind, after you lose, change the affidavits. Appealing the same losing affidavits is insane and helps nobody. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and to expect a different result.
Oh and do not think I for a second think Alrof is a correct statement of the law. American Transit v. Lucas proved that wrong. But this Court is a bit “thick” at time and unless its own precedent gets overruled,
Key Takeaway
This case reinforces the Alrof requirement that insurance companies must provide affidavits from individuals with personal knowledge of EUO no-shows. The repeated failures by the same insurance companies suggest a systemic issue with their documentation practices, leading to predictable denials of their summary judgment motions.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and EUO procedural requirements may have been subject to regulatory amendments or updated judicial interpretations. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding personal knowledge standards for EUO non-appearance documentation and any modifications to the Alrof standard cited in this analysis.
