Key Takeaway
Second Department case analysis applying Unitrin precedent through Clennon for EUO failures and provider scheduling requirements in NY no-fault insurance.
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.
Prestige Med. P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 24317 (Civ. Ct. 2014)
You can read this Civil Court case a bunch of different ways. There are two statements of law that I think ring true.
Statement number 1
The first is that Unitrin does apply in the Second Department. Judge Levine noted that Interboro v. Clennon cited Unitrin for the proposition of law that the failure to cooperate with an EUO allows a disclaimer. Unitrin of course stands for the proposition that a failure to attend IME’s voids coverage. Unitrin was supported through American Transit v. Lucas, where that Court cited to NY Presbyterian v. Countrywide for the proposition of law that the failure to attend IMEs is an absolute coverage defense. In American States v. Huff (an extremely important case in this arena for so many reasons) the Court held that the failure to participate in an EUO is an absolute coverage defense. This would be attending and saying “I am not going to answer questions” or even prior to a first no show calling the insurance company or their agent and saying “I am not going to appear, get lost.”
Judge Levine drawing in a decision by Judge Hirsh (which he probably will not follow because he is bound by the Appellate Term’s failure to recognize or cite Clennon in favor of Lincoln General from 2009), has held that she will follow Unitrin. Or course, JHO Spodek told the world he will not let “peer hearsay” into evidnec despite what the Appellate Term says, and we all know where that got his cause. A trailblazer with an illusory cause?
Statement number 2
The second statement is that a provider EUO must be scheduled within 15 business days of the completed EIP EUO to preserve the toll. This is nothing new, as the Appellate Term, First Department held this way last year in a NYCM case. She goes on to say that Untirin will not be followed if the verification, viz, provider EUO demand is mailed more than 15 business days following the EIP EUO, and the day for day deductions in the regulations for timeliness of denials would apply. This is probably a bit off base, trying to apply a hybrid of Unitrin and Lincoln General. I think the Appellate term was implicit in holding that if the provider EUO demand is scheduled more than 30-days following the EIP EUO (verification issued more than 30-days following receipt of prior verification would run afoul of Ins Law. 5106 and Westchester v. GMAC ), the toll would be lost and the coverage defense would be lost.
Related Articles
- Understanding EUO Requirements in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- EUO No-Show Consequences: What Happens When You Skip Your Examination Under Oath in New York
- Understanding EUO Denial: When Insurance Companies Can Substantiate Coverage Denials
- Personal Knowledge Requirements for EUO Non-Appearances: NY Legal Standards
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s no-fault regulations and EUO-related case law may have evolved significantly. Practitioners should verify current Second Department precedent regarding EUO cooperation requirements and absolute coverage defense standards, as subsequent appellate decisions may have clarified or modified the Unitrin/Clennon framework discussed here.
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 a 'significant lapse in time.'...
Feb 25, 2026EUO 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, 2021Understanding EUO Requirements in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
Learn about EUO requirements in New York no-fault insurance cases. Expert legal guidance from experienced attorneys. Call 516-750-0595 for consultation.
Oct 26, 2019Another EUO bonanza
J.K.M. Med. Care v Ameriprise: Court rules on EUO scheduling requirements, malpractice implications, and assignment timing in New York no-fault insurance case.
Dec 22, 2016Alrof strikes
Court rejects insurance company's EUO no-show defense, citing flawed Alrof precedent that misrepresents examination under oath requirements in no-fault cases.
May 4, 2015EUO letter did not toll time to pay or deny
Court rules EUO scheduling letter must identify specific person being requested for examination or lose toll benefit under NY Insurance Regulation 65-3.6(b).
Oct 27, 2013Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an Examination Under Oath (EUO) in no-fault insurance?
An EUO is a sworn, recorded interview conducted by the insurance company's attorney to investigate a no-fault claim. The insurer schedules the EUO and asks detailed questions about the accident, injuries, treatment, and the claimant's background. Under 11 NYCRR §65-3.5(e), appearing for the EUO is a condition precedent to receiving no-fault benefits — failure to appear can result in claim denial.
What happens if I miss my EUO appointment?
Missing an EUO (known as an EUO 'no-show') can result in denial of your no-fault benefits. However, insurers must follow strict procedural requirements: they must send two scheduling letters by certified and regular mail, provide adequate notice, and submit a timely denial based on the no-show. If the insurer fails to comply with these requirements, the denial can be overturned at arbitration or in court.
What questions will be asked at a no-fault EUO?
EUO questions typically cover your personal background, employment history, the circumstances of the accident, your injuries and symptoms, treatment received, prior accidents or injuries, and insurance history. The insurer's attorney may also ask about your daily activities and financial arrangements with medical providers. You have the right to have your attorney present, and your attorney can object to improper questions.
Can an insurance company require multiple EUOs for the same claim?
Yes, under 11 NYCRR §65-3.5(e), an insurer may request additional EUOs as reasonably necessary to investigate a claim. However, repeated EUO requests may be challenged as harassing or unreasonable. Courts have found that insurers cannot use EUOs as a tool to delay claims indefinitely. Each EUO request must be properly noticed with adequate time for the claimant to appear.
Do I have the right to an attorney at my EUO?
Yes. You have the right to have an attorney represent you at an EUO, and it is strongly recommended. Your attorney can prepare you for the types of questions asked, object to improper or overly broad questions, and ensure the insurer follows proper procedures. Having experienced no-fault counsel at your EUO can help protect your claim from being unfairly denied.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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.