Key Takeaway
Pavlova v Nationwide case establishes insurers can mail EUO notices directly to assignors, bypassing attorneys - concerning precedent for NY no-fault claims.
Pavlova v Nationwide Ins., 2021 NY Slip Op 50213(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2021)
“To establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing a complaint on the ground that a plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for an EUO, an insurer must demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it twice duly demanded an EUO from the assignor, that the assignor twice failed to appear, and that the insurer issued a timely denial of the claims (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 ). Contrary to the determination of the Civil Court, the affirmations of defendant’s counsel, as well as the transcripts of the EUOs, were sufficient to establish that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the EUOs. It is irrelevant whether plaintiff’s assignor was represented by counsel, as defendant was only required to mail the EUO scheduling letters to plaintiff’s assignor (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 ; 3.6 ). Consequently, as plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant’s motion or otherwise challenge the implicit CPLR 3212 (g) findings in defendant’s favor, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.”
We know if the letter is mailed to attorney and the attorney has knowledge that the Assignor’s address is wrong because it is evident on the mailed letter to the attorney, then it counts as service upon the Assignor. According to this case, we can skip the attorney all together, which is not good precedent.
Related Articles
- Understanding EUO Requirements in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- How to Challenge EUO No-Show Denials: When Improper Notice Can Reverse Insurance Denials in New York
- Personal Knowledge Requirements for EUO Non-Appearances: NY Legal Standards
- Understanding EUO Denial: When Insurance Companies Can Substantiate Coverage Denials
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
