Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51798(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
“On appeal, plaintiff contends that the EUO scheduling letters were defective because they did not adequately advise plaintiff as to why the EUO was being requested. However, since plaintiff does not claim to have responded in any way to the EUO requests, its objections regarding the EUO requests will not now be heard (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 35 Misc 3d 127[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50579[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; Crescent Radiology, PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co., 31 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50622[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]). In any event, plaintiff’s contention lacks merit since the EUO scheduling letters advised that the EUO would concern, among other things, plaintiff’s eligibility to be reimbursed for assigned no-fault benefits (see also 2006 Ops Ins Dept No. 06-12-16 [http://www.dfs.ny.gov/insurance/ogco2006/rg061216.htm]).”
My curiosity involves whether this “response” puts an end to the objection analysis, provided the EUO letters are appropriate in time, date and comply with the dictates of the DFS opinion, stating that only a provider corporation (not an individual) may be named for an EUO.
