Key Takeaway
Fourth Department clarifies EUO nonappearance defense as policy exclusion rather than coverage matter in Nationwide v Jamaica Wellness Medical declaratory judgment case.
This article is part of our ongoing declaratory judgments coverage, with 43 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.
Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Jamaica Wellness Med., P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 07850 (4th Dept. 2018)
(1) “We conclude that a defense premised upon nonappearance at an EUO is “more like a normal’ exception from coverage (e.g., a policy exclusion)” than one involving “a lack of coverage in the first instance (i.e., a defense implicat a coverage matter’)” (Fair Price Med. Supply Corp., 10 NY3d at 565; see also Hospital for Joint Diseases, 9 NY3d at 319-320; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y., 90 NY2d at 281-286; see generally Central Gen. Hosp., 90 NY2d at 199). Unlike defenses where preclusion thereof would result in coverage where it never existed, such as those premised upon the lack of a contract with the person claiming coverage or for the vehicle involved in the accident, the termination of the contract prior to the accident, or the cause of the purported injuries being something other than a vehicular accident (see Hospital for Joint Diseases, 9 NY3d at 319; Central Gen. Hosp., 90 NY2d at 200; Zappone v Home Ins. Co., 55 NY2d 131, 136-138 ), the EUO nonappearance defense allows the insurer to avoid liability for the payment of no-fault benefits where the insured or assignee has breached a condition in an existing policy providing coverage”
(2) “We further agree with defendant that, contrary to the court’s determination and Nationwide’s contention, our holding in Interboro Ins. Co. v Tahir (129 AD3d 1687 ) is not controlling. The no-coverage exception to the preclusion remedy was not at issue and the insurer disclaimed coverage in that case; thus, it is factually distinguishable and legally unpersuasive inasmuch as the broad language regarding vitiation of the contract for failure to comply with a condition precedent was not central to the holding and did not account for the conceptual differences between types of conditions precedent (see id. at 1688).”
What saddens ms it that Tahir was my case. It is also remarkable that the Court did not examine NYP v. C-Wide. I also am upset that nobody sought to really delve into the policy language itself, and to contrast it with the notion of a condition precedent in other contexts.
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.
The issue is one step closer to Court of Appeals scrutiny.
https://ad4.nycourts.gov/go/live/channel.asp?id={F23F2521-D06B-4824-8ADD-F51A30AD02B8}
Oral Argument Start time: 27:20
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.
43 published articles in Declaratory Judgments
Keep Reading
More Declaratory Judgments Analysis
EUO Declaratory Judgment
Court rules on EUO no-show case involving mailing issues, mutual rescheduling disputes, and provider's untimely bill submissions in no-fault insurance litigation.
May 14, 2020
The Master Cheng Decision: Supreme Court Cannot Vacate a Civil Court Judgment
The March 2020 Master Cheng decision distinguishes vacating a Civil Court judgment from staying enforcement through a Supreme Court declaratory judgment.
Apr 27, 2020
A DJ without a purpose
Court dismisses carrier's declaratory judgment lacking Manhattan nexus when arbitration demands filed, highlighting jurisdictional issues in no-fault cases.
Feb 17, 2016
EUO no show sustained
EUO no show sustained - Court grants summary judgment against medical provider when assignor failed to appear for scheduled Examination Under Oath in NY no-fault case.
Jul 8, 2014
Understanding New York No-Fault Insurance EUO Requirements: Why DFS Does Not Approve Improper Disclaimers
Learn why DFS does not approve improper EUO disclaimer practices in NY no-fault insurance. Expert legal analysis from experienced Long Island lawyers.
May 22, 2019
Failure to cooperate
Court ruling on no-fault insurance coverage denial due to provider's failure to cooperate at examination under oath and unlicensed practice violations.
Oct 28, 2017Was 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.
