What’s the over under on this appeal scheduled for the December term

No-fault insurance litigation often follows predictable patterns, particularly when insurance companies fail to follow proper procedures in their coverage disputes. The case of Metropolitan Group Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Gonzalez – Active Care Medical Supply Corp. presents a textbook example of an insurer’s procedural missteps that are likely heading toward appellate reversal.

This dispute centers on New York No-Fault Insurance Law requirements regarding Examinations Under Oath (EUOs) — a critical tool insurers use to investigate potentially fraudulent claims. When insurers fail to schedule these examinations within the required timeframe or lack proper documentation of their scheduling practices, courts frequently rule against them on procedural grounds.

The pattern Jason identifies here — where insurers create “bad law” through repeated procedural failures — reflects broader challenges in no-fault litigation where EUO scheduling requirements must be strictly followed to preserve coverage defenses.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Metropolitan Group Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Gonzalez – Active Care Med. Supply Corp. (Sup, Ct. 151619/12)

I checked the underlying cases because I was curious. It looks like Metroplitan’s SIU discovery chicanery, sought EUOS and nobody appeared.

A DJ action was interposed, the usual suspects answered and a motion for summary judgment was interposed that was granted. Missing from the moving papers was evidence as to when the billing was received and whether the EUO’s were scheduled within 30-days of receipt of the billing. Rybak appealed and I am sure the order will be reversed. We saw that play out in National v. Tam and Liberty v. KO Medical. Why is Plaintiff creating more bad law? I am confused.

I would call client, let them know the law changed, consent to vacate the order of Supreme Court, and move again. What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Key Takeaway

This case exemplifies a recurring problem in no-fault insurance litigation where insurers win at trial court level but face certain reversal on appeal due to procedural deficiencies. When insurance companies fail to properly document EUO scheduling timelines or follow proper procedural requirements, they create adverse precedent that weakens their position in future cases. Strategic litigation management requires recognizing when to concede procedural errors rather than pursuing appeals destined to fail.