Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 248 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.
Allstate’s EUO No-Show Defense Falls Short on Proof Requirements
Examination Under Oath (EUO) proceedings are a critical component of New York No-Fault Insurance Law, allowing insurance companies to investigate claims before making coverage decisions. When medical providers fail to appear for scheduled EUOs, insurers often use this as grounds to deny claims entirely. However, a recent Appellate Term decision demonstrates that insurance companies must provide proper proof of nonappearance to successfully defend on this basis.
The case of New Quality Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. illustrates common issues that arise when insurers attempt to prove EUO no-shows without adequate documentation. This decision also touches on the ongoing debate regarding Allstate’s mailing procedures and whether their standard affidavits meet the court’s requirements for establishing personal knowledge of nonappearance.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
New Quality Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50871(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
Defendant’s contention that its cross motion for summary judgment should have been granted due to plaintiff’s failure to appear for duly scheduled EUOs lacks merit, as the Civil Court correctly found that defendant had failed to submit proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff for the EUOs in question (see Bright Med. Supply Co. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 130, 2013 NY Slip Op 51123 ; Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 130, 2013 NY Slip Op 50458 ). Since defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it had timely denied plaintiff’s claims (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 ; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 ), defendant’s contention that its papers were sufficient, at least, to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs is irrelevant.
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.
I have heard about the split in the courts regarding the Allstate mailing affidavit. Does this represent that?
Key Takeaway
The court’s decision reinforces that insurance companies cannot simply claim an EUO no-show occurred—they must provide testimony from someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance. This case references the problematic Alrof decision, which continues to create challenges for medical providers in no-fault litigation. The ruling also highlights timing issues with claim denials under regulatory requirements.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2016 post, New York’s no-fault regulations under 11 NYCRR 65-3 have undergone several amendments, including updates to EUO procedural requirements and documentation standards. Additionally, appellate decisions since 2016 may have further refined the proof requirements for establishing EUO non-appearance, and fee schedules referenced in related regulations have been periodically updated. Practitioners should verify current provisions of 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 and review recent case law developments regarding EUO proof standards.
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
Another procedural faux pause
A no-fault insurance case where both parties lost summary judgment motions due to factual disputes over EUO notice and appearance, highlighting strategic appeal considerations.
Apr 16, 2011
A basic EUO no-show
NY appellate court ruling on EUO no-show requirements: insurers must prove two proper demands, two failures to appear, and timely denial for summary judgment.
Nov 13, 2018
Personal knowledge from the First Department
New York appellate court clarifies personal knowledge requirements for insurance attorneys in EUO no-show cases, highlighting key differences between departments.
Feb 20, 2016
An ALROF citing
SP Chiropractic v. IDS shows another court citing Alrof's flawed requirement for personal knowledge proof of EUO no-shows, highlighting ongoing insurance defense failures.
Jul 6, 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.
