Why Trust This Analysis
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.
Understanding EUO Timing Requirements Under New York No-Fault Law
Examinations Under Oath (EUOs) are a crucial component of New York No-Fault Insurance Law, allowing insurers to investigate claims before approving payment. However, insurers must follow strict procedural requirements when requesting these examinations. The timing of EUO requests has become a frequent point of litigation, with courts consistently holding insurers to precise regulatory deadlines.
The Court of Appeals has established clear precedent that insurance companies cannot indefinitely delay scheduling EUOs while continuing to investigate claims. This timing requirement protects healthcare providers and patients from unnecessary delays in receiving payment for legitimate no-fault benefits. When insurers fail to comply with these deadlines, they may lose their right to deny claims based on EUO objections or non-compliance.
Understanding these timing requirements is essential for both healthcare providers submitting no-fault claims and insurers processing them, as violations can result in automatic claim approval regardless of the underlying merits.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51665(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)
“Pursuant to the No-Fault Regulations, “any additional verification required by the insurer to establish proof of claim shall be requested within 15 business days of receipt of the ” (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 ). This rule applies to requests for EUOs (see e.g. Longevity Medical Supply, Inc. v IDS Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 137, 2014 NY Slip Op 51244 )” (O & M Med., P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co., 47 Misc 3d 134, 2015 NY Slip Op 50476 ). As defendant’s moving papers reflect that defendant’s first EUO scheduling letter was mailed about 50 days after defendant had received the claim at issue in this action, defendant failed to demonstrate that it had properly denied the claim based upon plaintiff’s failure to comply with a condition precedent to coverage”
It should be noted that the same result would apply in the First Department National Liability v. Tam Medical. An EUO must be scheduled within 30-days of receipt of the claim.
Key Takeaway
The 15-day rule under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(b) is strictly enforced by New York courts. When insurers fail to request EUOs within this timeframe, they cannot later deny claims based on the insured’s failure to appear for the examination. This creates a procedural bar that effectively results in automatic claim approval, regardless of whether the EUO no-show was substantiated.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2015 post, 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(b) and related EUO timing provisions may have been amended through regulatory updates or interpretive guidance from the New York Department of Financial Services. Additionally, subsequent appellate decisions may have further refined the procedural requirements and timing deadlines for EUO requests. Practitioners should verify current regulatory language and recent case law interpretations when advising on EUO compliance matters.
Related Articles
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.
Feb 25, 2026
EUO 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, 2021
EUO no-show (case #3)
Long Island court case analysis: Points of Health v Lancer Insurance on EUO scheduling letters, timely mailing procedures, and no-fault claim denial defenses.
Jul 30, 2010
Charley Deng Called the Wrong Number: How a Botched EUO Reschedule Call Sank a No-Fault Claim
Charles Deng Acupuncture v State Farm: calling the wrong investigator at the wrong number to reschedule an EUO raised no triable issue of fact in this no-fault suit.
Dec 26, 2017
EUO no show defense substantiated
Court ruling confirms insurers don't need objective reasons for EUO demands when proving prima facie case for no-show defense in New York no-fault claims.
Nov 28, 2015
Alrof citing again – never a good thing
Court cites problematic Alrof precedent again for EUO no-shows, highlighting ongoing issues with personal knowledge requirements in no-fault insurance cases.
Apr 19, 2014Was this article helpful?
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.
