Understanding Verification Requirements in No-Fault Insurance Claims: When the Denial Can Wait

Parisien held the insurer’s denial timely after it received requested written verification, even though more than 45 days had passed since the second EUO nonappearance. The written response had arrived. The case is not an example of a carrier waiting indefinitely for documents that never came.

Historical note: Parisien v Citiwide Auto Leasing, 64 Misc 3d 132(A) (2019), concerns the interaction of written verification and an EUO denial in its particular chronology. The current verification hub separates that issue from the later Chapa denial-timing ruling.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

The sequence that made the difference

Parisien v Citiwide Auto Leasing Inc., decided March 1, 2019, involved multiple causes of action for assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Kings County Civil Court had granted the provider’s motion and denied the insurer’s cross-motion on the branches later challenged.

The Appellate Term reversed those branches and granted the insurer dismissal. It found the insurer’s proof sufficient concerning verification requests, EUO scheduling, nonappearances and denial timing.

More than 45 days separated the second EUO nonappearance from the denial. But the insurer had requested written verification and issued its denial timely after receiving that verification. The receipt event explains why measuring only from the second missed EUO gave the wrong answer on this record.

Written verification and an EUO serve different functions

An EUO is an examination under oath. A written-verification request asks for information or records. A claim may involve both, but the dates and evidence for each need to be identified.

Regulation 68, § 65-3.8(a)(1), measures the payment period from receipt of proof of claim, including relevant verification properly requested under § 65-3.5. It also specifies when an examination is deemed received for that purpose.

Parisien applied the verification chronology before it. The opinion does not make every written request sufficient to extend an examination-related denial deadline. Its result depends on the supported requests and the later receipt of verification, not just the insurer saying that a file was incomplete.

What to put on the timeline

Separate the initial bill and prescribed forms from later document requests. Record the initial and follow-up request dates, the scheduled EUO dates, the evidence of nonappearance, the written response’s receipt and the denial.

Each entry should have a source. A date on a document may show when it was prepared without proving when it was mailed or received. Keep the witness evidence and transmission records beside the event they support.

This is a method for reviewing the case’s relevance, not a substitute for the governing legal requirements. If a current file has different requests, an objection, partial production or no response at all, its chronology differs from the one on which Parisien was decided.

Nonreceipt and incomplete production are different cases

In Right Aid, the disputed trial issue was whether requested verification had been received. In New Horizon Surgical, relevant information remained outstanding after a partial response.

Parisien should not be described as either of those fact patterns. Written verification was received, and the court measured the denial’s timeliness in that context.

The GLM notice decision deals with proof of scheduled EUOs and nonappearance. It helps identify the examination evidence, but its discussion of alternative prematurity relief was not a ruling on every possible outstanding-document theory.

A later timing rule does not replace this analysis

The 2026 Chapa decision rejected an additional 150-day cutoff for a denial under the qualifying 120-day document-verification provisions. Those provisions expressly exclude prescribed NF forms, IMEs and EUOs.

That means the separate response and denial frameworks need to be kept distinct. A reader cannot use the 120-day period as a general deadline for attending an EUO, or assume Chapa decided the mixed chronology in Parisien.

For providers, the practical value of Parisien is that a denial’s date must be compared with the full request-and-response history. For insurers, the value is equally concrete: a motion needs evidence of that history. Neither side can establish the result through the title “when the denial can wait” alone.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens if I don’t respond to a verification request?

Properly outstanding verification may affect whether payment is overdue or suit is premature. Qualifying document noncompliance can also support a denial when the regulatory conditions are met. Parisien itself involved written verification that was eventually received.

Can insurance companies use verification requests to delay payment indefinitely?

No unlimited permission follows from this case. The insurer established the relevant verification history and a denial timely after receipt. A generic assertion that more information is needed does not reproduce that showing.

How does the Parisien decision affect existing claims?

It is an authority to compare against the actual request, EUO, response and denial dates. It does not reopen or resolve every claim automatically. The relevant court and later authority also need consideration.

What should I do if I disagree with a verification request?

Identify the actual problem and address it in writing with supporting reasons. The Elite objection decision illustrates a timely objection’s treatment in arbitration, without making every objection sufficient or permitting every examination to be missed.

Does this decision apply to all types of no-fault claims?

No. It addresses assigned no-fault claims with a particular combination of written-verification requests and EUO nonappearances. Other benefits, grounds for denial, request types and procedural settings can raise different issues.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the no-fault verification hub and 2026 Chapa update for the governing framework and case directory. Related case notes:

• Elite Medical: a timely pricing objection in master arbitration.
• New Horizon: partial production and premature dismissal.
• GLM: EUO notices, nonappearance proof and the ADA-comment limit.
• NF-3 and Right Aid: the official provider form and receipt evidence.

For review of a particular no-fault verification dispute, request a Free Case Review. Keep the requests, responses and relevant claim dates available for that review.