Key Takeaway
New York court ruling on EUO timing requirements and toll provisions for no-fault insurance claims, addressing when scheduling letters affect subsequent bills.
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.
Stracar Med. Servs. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51759(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2018)
(1) “Plaintiff does not dispute that a letter scheduling its EUO was mailed to plaintiff on December 13, 2011, or that a follow-up scheduling letter was timely mailed. Contrary to plaintiff’s main contention on appeal, once that initial letter was mailed to plaintiff, the toll of defendant’s time to pay or deny plaintiff’s claims applied to any claim form submitted by plaintiff for the same assignor and accident subsequent to that request, but before plaintiff breached a policy condition by failing to appear for two properly scheduled EUOs”
(2) “While plaintiff notes that the first EUO scheduling letter was mailed 16 business days after defendant’s receipt of two bills on November 18, 2011, which is one day later than is set forth in the Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 ) for the time to seek verification, it fails to explain why this should result in even the partial denial of defendant’s motion, since the denial of claim forms with respect to those two bills were mailed 21 days after plaintiff’s failure to appear for the second EUO (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 ).”
Well, Plaintiff argued that in Unitrin v. All About Health, the First Department construed 15 business days to mean 15 calendar days and did not apply the 65-3.8(l) day for day logic. But the Appellate Term found that logic to be unavailing.
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.
Related Articles
- Understanding EUO Requirements in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- New York EUO Requirements: When Examination Under Oath Demands Are Untimely
- How to Challenge EUO No-Show Denials: When Improper Notice Can Reverse Insurance Denials
- EUO No-Show Consequences: What Happens When You Skip Your Examination Under Oath
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2018 post discussing EUO scheduling requirements under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 and denial timeframes under 11 NYCRR 65-3.8, the Insurance Department has issued several amendments to Part 65 regulations, including revisions to verification request timing and EUO procedural requirements. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding EUO scheduling deadlines and the toll provisions for claim payment obligations, as regulatory changes may have modified the specific timeframes and procedures discussed in the Stracar decision.
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
This one takes the cake
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum criticizes a 2010 Nassau District Court decision in Dynamic Medical Imaging v State Farm, calling it legally flawed and against established precedent.
Jul 20, 2010
Non objected to EUO
Court ruling clarifies insurers don't need objective reasons for EUO requests, but leaves unresolved what happens when medical providers object to examinations under oath.
Nov 11, 2017
What is "other appropriate means"?
New York court ruling explores what constitutes "other appropriate means" to prove EUO no-shows beyond personal knowledge, leaving this critical legal standard undefined.
Oct 30, 2015
EUO no show not timely
Court rules insurance carrier failed to prove timely EUO requests, highlighting critical procedural requirements in no-fault insurance defense cases.
Mar 18, 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 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.
