Key Takeaway
Court rejects insurance company's EUO no-show defense, citing flawed Alrof precedent that misrepresents examination under oath requirements in no-fault cases.
Court Rejects Insurer’s EUO Defense Based on Problematic Alrof Precedent
The VE Medical Care decision highlights ongoing issues with how courts handle examination under oath (EUO) disputes in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases. When insurance companies deny claims based on a provider’s alleged failure to appear for a scheduled EUO, they must meet specific legal standards to prevail. This case demonstrates how reliance on questionable precedent can undermine an insurer’s defense strategy.
The Alrof decision has become a recurring problem in no-fault litigation, with courts citing it inappropriately despite its flawed legal reasoning. Understanding the proper standards for EUO no-show defenses is crucial for both healthcare providers and insurance companies navigating these disputes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
VE Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 50603(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)
“Defendant’s motion should have been denied, as defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, its defense that plaintiff had failed to appear for properly scheduled EUOs (see e.g. 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 ).”
Oh Alrof (again). A misstatement of law that seemed directed a particular law firm.
Key Takeaway
This decision reinforces that insurance companies cannot simply assert an EUO no-show defense without proper legal foundation. The court’s reference to the problematic Alrof precedent underscores the importance of challenging flawed legal reasoning in no-fault cases, particularly when such decisions appear to target specific practices rather than establish sound legal principles.
