The NF-2 does not matter

Understanding the timing requirements for Examinations Under Oath (EUOs) in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases can be complex, particularly when it comes to the role of NF-2 forms. A recent Appellate Term decision provides important clarity on when insurance companies must schedule EUOs and whether receipt of the NF-2 form affects these timing obligations.

The case of Excel Products, Inc. v Ameriprise Auto & Home demonstrates a common misconception among practitioners about EUO scheduling requirements. Many assume that insurance companies must wait to receive the NF-2 form before scheduling examinations, but this decision confirms that’s not always the case. When claims are denied within the statutory 30-day period and EUOs have been properly scheduled, the timing of NF-2 receipt becomes irrelevant.

This ruling has significant implications for no-fault practitioners who often focus heavily on NF-2 timing issues in their litigation strategy.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Excel Prods., Inc. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 2021 NY Slip Op 50435(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2021)

“As a result, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d at 597). Defendant did not need to toll its time to pay or deny the claims at issue, as they were denied within 30 days of defendant’s receipt of same, and the EUOs had been scheduled prior to defendant’s receipt of plaintiff’s claims. Consequently, plaintiff’s contention that defendant needed, but failed, to demonstrate that the EUO scheduling letters were timely mailed after defendant’s receipt of the NF-2 form lacks merit and is contrary to Insurance Law article 51 and the regulations promulgated thereunder”

I post this here because of the NF-2 confusion that plays out. 2x no show prior to receipt of bill + timely disclaimer = loser.

Key Takeaway

When insurance companies deny no-fault claims within 30 days and schedule EUOs before receiving bills, the timing of NF-2 form receipt doesn’t matter. This case reinforces that proper denial procedures combined with timely EUO scheduling can defeat claims even when procedural timing arguments are raised.