Key Takeaway
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum analyzes a driver EUO case involving contradictory testimony about a livery vehicle accident, highlighting patterns in commercial insurance investigations.
Understanding Driver Examinations Under Oath in No-Fault Cases
Examinations under oath (EUOs) are a crucial tool in New York No-Fault Insurance Law that allow insurance companies to investigate potentially fraudulent claims. In commercial livery cases, these examinations often reveal contradictory testimony that can significantly impact claim outcomes. The case of City Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co. provides a compelling example of how driver testimony during an EUO can expose inconsistencies in accident reports.
When drivers provide sworn testimony that directly contradicts police reports or passenger accounts, it raises red flags for insurance investigators. These contradictions become particularly significant when passengers have already submitted their own claims for the same alleged incident. Understanding these patterns is essential for both attorneys and healthcare providers involved in no-fault insurance disputes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
City Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50037(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“During his examination under oath, the driver testified that he had rented the insured vehicle, which he drove as a livery vehicle, that the assignors had been passengers in his vehicle on February 13, 2013, and that the vehicle had not been involved in an accident on that date. Also, after the passengers in his vehicle called the police and reported that an accident had taken place, the driver told the responding police officer that there had been no accident.”
When I see the driver EUO or driver sworn statement in commercial livery cases, my next question is: where is the EIP EUO? You know it is somewhere… Just an observation.
Key Takeaway
This case illustrates the importance of driver testimony in exposing potential no-fault fraud schemes. When a driver’s sworn statement contradicts passenger claims and police reports, it often signals a pattern of organized fraud. As attorney Tenenbaum notes, the presence of a driver EUO in commercial cases typically indicates that an Eligible Injured Person (EIP) examination is also part of the investigation, suggesting a comprehensive review of all parties involved in the alleged incident.
The strategic use of EUO objections and understanding when no-show situations occur can significantly impact the outcome of these complex no-fault insurance disputes.
