Key Takeaway
Court rules EUO scheduling letters don't need business records exception when offered to prove mailing, not truth of contents, expanding non-hearsay doctrine.
New York’s courts continue to refine the boundaries of the business records exception under CPLR 4518(a), particularly in no-fault insurance disputes. The case Sin Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. demonstrates how insurance companies can successfully defend claims by proving proper notice was given, even without satisfying traditional business records requirements.
This decision reflects a broader trend where courts recognize that documents offered to prove they were sent—rather than to establish the truth of their contents—fall outside the hearsay rule entirely. This distinction has significant implications for no-fault practitioners, as it means certain procedural documents like examination under oath (EUO) scheduling letters and independent medical examination notices may not need to meet the stringent CPLR 4518(a) requirements that have traditionally governed business record admissibility.
The ruling also highlights how sworn stenographic transcripts can effectively establish a patient’s failure to appear for required examinations, providing insurers with a clear path to deny coverage based on non-compliance with policy requirements.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Sin Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51246(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
(1) Contrary to the Civil Court’s conclusion, defendant’s failure to establish that the EUO scheduling letters constituted evidence pursuant to the business records exception to the rule against hearsay as set forth in CPLR 4518 is of no consequence. Defendant did not offer the EUO scheduling letters to establish the “truth” of any matters asserted therein, but rather to show that the letters had been sent. As the letters were not offered for a hearsay purpose, they did not need to qualify as business records pursuant to CPLR 4518
(2) Furthermore, defendant established, based upon sworn stenographic transcripts, that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs
The 4518 argument lost luster when the Court held that policy declaration sheets did not have to be in evidence to be considered along with denial of claim forms. By analogy, EUO letters and IME letters were next to be considered under the “it is not a 4518 rule” doctrine.
Key Takeaway
This decision expands the “non-hearsay” doctrine in no-fault litigation, allowing insurers to introduce scheduling letters and similar documents without meeting business records requirements when the purpose is proving mailing rather than content truth. This procedural advantage significantly strengthens insurers’ ability to demonstrate proper notice and patient non-compliance in coverage disputes.
