Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing declaratory judgments coverage, with 191 published articles analyzing declaratory judgments 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.
Proper Notice Requirements for Independent Medical Examinations
In New York no-fault insurance cases, insurance companies must provide adequate notice when scheduling Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs). A recent First Department decision highlights the critical importance of ensuring that IME scheduling letters reach the insured person directly, even when their attorney is also notified.
The case Global Liberty Ins. Co. v New Century Acupuncture, P.C. demonstrates how technical mailing errors can derail an insurance company’s efforts to deny coverage based on an IME no-show. This decision underscores the rigorous notice standards that courts apply when evaluating whether an insured person’s failure to appear at an IME justifies claim denial.
Understanding these notice requirements is essential for both insurance companies and healthcare providers navigating New York No-Fault Insurance Law. Similar IME notice issues frequently arise in no-fault litigation, as seen in cases involving mailing problems that prevent proper IME scheduling.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
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.
Global Liberty Ins. Co. v New Century Acupuncture, P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 03444 (1st Dept. 2018)
“Plaintiff sent an initial IME scheduling letter, and a re-scheduling letter, to both Davis and her attorney. After Davis failed to appear for the re-scheduled IME, plaintiff sent a third letter to the attorney, which indicated on its face that a copy had been sent to Davis. However, it is undisputed that the letter to Davis was sent to the wrong address. Thus, there was no reason for the attorney to know that Davis had not received notice of the re-scheduled IME and to tell her of the new IME date and location. Under these circumstances, the motion court properly found that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it provided adequate notice, reasonably calculated to apprise Davis that her appearance at an IME at a specified date and location was required”
Key Takeaway
Courts require insurance companies to provide actual notice to insured persons for IME scheduling, not just notice to their attorneys. When an IME letter is sent to the wrong address, the insurance company cannot rely on attorney notification alone to establish adequate notice, even if the attorney received proper notice and had no reason to know the insured wasn’t notified.
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.
About This Topic
Declaratory Judgment Practice in New York
Declaratory judgment proceedings provide a mechanism for parties to obtain binding judicial determinations of their legal rights and obligations. In insurance litigation, declaratory judgments are commonly sought to resolve disputes over policy coverage, fraud allegations, and the enforceability of policy conditions. These articles analyze declaratory judgment procedure, the standards courts apply, and the strategic implications of seeking or defending against declaratory relief in New York insurance cases.
191 published articles in Declaratory Judgments
Keep Reading
More Declaratory Judgments Analysis
Simple addition is insufficient
Jodi Jacobs's 2021 mixed appeal: four claims dismissed, one fee balance unresolved, and why the schedule alone did not prove correct code use.
May 22, 2021
NF-3 is the operative document
Unitrin Direct v Beckles: the NF-3, timely IME requests and two missed examinations. Distinguish the request deadline from the examination date.
Mar 22, 2021
No comment
All Borough v Utica: insurer won dismissal with evidence of IME notices, nonappearance and timely denials. Jason's short 2011 note, with the decision linked.
May 31, 2011
DJ went south
Court ruling on Unitrin v All of NY case shows how declaratory judgment for EUO non-compliance failed due to untimely notice requirements under NY no-fault law.
Feb 7, 2018
DJ victory
Appellate Term ruling demonstrates how declaratory judgment victories can effectively bar subsequent no-fault insurance litigation through res judicata doctrine.
Dec 16, 2015
“Defendant is mistaken”
Court ruling shows insurance companies can't use IME no-shows as defense if they failed to timely deny claims, highlighting procedural requirements in no-fault cases.
Mar 25, 2014Was 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 declaratory judgments 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.
