Key Takeaway
Ameriprise loses summary judgment motion due to lack of personal knowledge proof for EUO no-shows, following the established Alrof precedent in New York no-fault law.
Ameriprise Fails to Prove EUO No-Show with Personal Knowledge
In New York no-fault insurance litigation, insurance companies frequently rely on examinations under oath (EUOs) as a defense mechanism. When healthcare providers allegedly fail to appear for scheduled EUOs, insurers often seek to deny claims and pursue summary judgment. However, as this Appellate Term decision demonstrates, simply asserting that a no-show occurred isn’t enough — the insurer must provide proper proof through someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance.
This case adds to a growing body of law requiring strict adherence to evidentiary standards in EUO no-show scenarios. The court’s reference to the landmark Alrof decision highlights how this precedent continues to impact no-fault litigation, often working against insurance companies who fail to properly document their EUO processes. As we’ve seen in previous Alrof citations, this standard creates significant procedural hurdles for insurers.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Optimal Well-Being Chiropractic, P.c. v Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins., 2014 NY Slip Op 51858(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
“Defendant opposed plaintiff’s motion and sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant had timely and properly denied the claims at issue based on plaintiff’s failure to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). However,[*2]defendant failed to submit proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff at the EUOs in question (see Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 130, 2013 NY Slip Op 50458 ; see also Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 ; SP Chiropractic, P.C. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 126, 2014 NY Slip Op 50952 ; Bright Med. Supply Co. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 130, 2013 NY Slip Op 51123 ).Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.”
Yikes.
Key Takeaway
Ameriprise’s failure to provide testimony from someone with personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s EUO non-appearance proved fatal to their summary judgment motion. This decision reinforces that insurance companies cannot rely on hearsay or conclusory statements when asserting EUO no-show defenses under New York No-Fault Insurance Law — they must present proper evidentiary proof to succeed.
