Key Takeaway
Discovery of false statements about prior injuries after case filing can warrant additional examinations under oath, potentially leading to coverage disclaimer.
Discovery Rights After False Statements About Prior Injuries
Courts recognize that insurance companies and defendants have legitimate discovery rights when they uncover material misrepresentations, even after the formal discovery period has ended. This principle becomes particularly important in personal injury and no-fault insurance cases where accurate disclosure of prior medical history is crucial to evaluating claims.
The First Department’s recent decision in Jones v Seta establishes important precedent for how courts handle situations where false statements about prior injuries come to light after the note of issue has been filed. This ruling has significant implications for both examinations under oath (EUOs) in no-fault cases and depositions in personal injury litigation.
Understanding when “unusual or unanticipated circumstances” justify reopening discovery can be critical for practitioners on both sides. While EUO objections may sometimes prove futile, strategic considerations around additional examinations remain important, especially when dealing with potential coverage disclaimers.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Jones v Seta, 2016 NY Slip Op 06556 (1st Dept. 2016)
“Defendants’ discovery, after the filing of the note of issue, that Jones had been involved in prior accidents involving the same body parts alleged to have been injured in the subject accident, constitutes “unusual or unanticipated circumstances” warranting further discovery (22 NYCRR 202.21; see Bermel v Dagostino, 50 AD3d 303 ). However, defendants have not articulated a need for a supplemental physical examination, as the IME doctor has already examined Jones, documented his or her findings, and can supplement the same upon receipt of the records relating to Jones’ prior injuries and treatment”
By analogy, false statements at an EUO regarding prior injuries would then warrant a subsequent EUO. Assuming the false statements at the second EUO are not remediable, is this a ground for disclaimer?
Key Takeaway
When false statements about prior injuries surface after discovery has formally closed, courts may permit additional examinations or depositions based on “unusual or unanticipated circumstances.” In no-fault insurance contexts, this principle could support subsequent EUOs, and persistent false statements may provide grounds for coverage disclaimer.
