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.
In New York no-fault insurance law, timing is everything. Insurance companies must follow strict deadlines when processing claims, including when they schedule Examinations Under Oath (EUOs). The 30-day rule for claim denials has been well-established, but what about EUO scheduling letters? A recent appellate court decision provides important clarity on this timing requirement.
The case of Fontanella v Allstate Ins. Co. addresses a critical procedural issue that affects both healthcare providers and patients seeking no-fault benefits. When insurers delay in scheduling EUOs, they may forfeit their right to deny claims based on those examinations. This decision reinforces existing precedent while explicitly stating what many practitioners have long understood about timing requirements in no-fault insurance disputes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Fontanella v Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51679(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
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.
“As to the remaining claims, defendant failed to establish that the denials were timely. The EUO scheduling letters were not sent within 30 days of the insurer’s receipt of each of the claims (see O & M Med., P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co., 47 Misc 3d 134, 2015 NY Slip Op 50476 ), and we note that delay letters, which request no verification, do not toll the 30-day statutory time period within which a claim must be paid or denied”
Beating a dead horse. I think this may be the first time I saw a direction that said “EUO scheduling letters needed to be sent within 30-days of receipt of the claim.” This has been implied in light of 65-3.5(b); 3.5(l); 3.8 and Ins Law 5106 and the Neptune-Ameriprise case.
I actually get shutters when I see “Ameriprise” or “Allstate” listed in a no-fault appeal, because I know my life has just gotten that much more difficult than the night before.
Key Takeaway
This decision explicitly confirms that EUO scheduling letters must be sent within 30 days of claim receipt, just like denial letters. Delay letters cannot extend this statutory deadline. The ruling reinforces timing requirements that have been implied by various regulations and prior cases, particularly involving Allstate EUO cases, and provides clearer guidance for future disputes over procedural compliance in no-fault insurance claims.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2016 post, New York no-fault regulations may have been amended regarding EUO scheduling deadlines and procedural requirements under Insurance Law Section 5106 and related regulatory provisions. Practitioners should verify current timing requirements for EUO scheduling letters and any updates to the 30-day rule, as regulatory changes and subsequent case law may have modified these procedural 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
EUOs (rescheduling)
New York court clarifies that mutually agreed EUO rescheduling doesn't constitute failure to appear, but subsequent no-shows do under no-fault insurance law.
Dec 4, 2015
Timely denials necessary and a citation to Westchester/Lincoln
New York court rules on timely denial requirements for IME/EUO no-show cases, questioning continued reliance on 2009 Westchester/Lincoln precedent despite newer case law.
Jul 6, 2014
Leave denied
Court denies leave in Unitrin v Bayshore Physical Therapy case, highlighting challenges healthcare providers face under current no-fault insurance regulations.
Jun 28, 2011
What happened to those EUO letters? What happened to the IME letters? Where are those denials?
NY appellate court cases showing inadequate office practice affidavits fail to prove proper mailing of EUO letters, IME notices, and claim denials.
Jun 3, 2018Was 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.
