Skip to main content
It is personal knowledge again
No-Fault

It is personal knowledge again

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

Learn about personal knowledge requirements for EUO no-show affidavits in NY no-fault cases. Expert analysis from JT Law. Call 516-750-0595.

This article is part of our ongoing no-fault coverage, with 271 published articles analyzing no-fault 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.

EUO No-Show Affidavits: The Personal Knowledge Debate That Affects Your No-Fault Claim

If you’ve been involved in a motor vehicle accident in New York and are dealing with no-fault insurance claims, you may encounter something called an Examination Under Oath (EUO). But what happens when someone doesn’t show up for their scheduled EUO? A recent case, SVP Med Supply, Inc. v GEICO, 2022 NY Slip Op 50775(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2022), highlights ongoing concerns about how insurance companies prove EUO no-shows – and why this matters for your case.

The SVP Med Supply Case: What Courts Accept as Proof

In this case, GEICO defended against a no-fault claim by arguing that the plaintiff failed to appear for a scheduled EUO. To prove this no-show, they submitted an attorney’s affirmation with some interesting language:

“Defendant submitted the affirmation of an attorney who stated that she was in her firm’s office on the dates on which the EUOs were scheduled, that she would have either conducted the EUO herself or assigned another attorney to do so, and that plaintiff did not appear. She was not required to state that she was present in the office at any specific time on the scheduled dates.”

The court accepted this as sufficient proof of personal knowledge, but this ruling raises important questions about the quality and reliability of such evidence.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Honest Assessment

As Jason Tenenbaum notes in his candid analysis: “I honestly dislike those affidavits. They read as a lazy person’s way to prove a no-show, and I tend to wonder if this practice or protocol really happens.”

This frank assessment from an experienced personal injury attorney highlights a critical issue: are these affidavits truly based on personal knowledge, or are they formulaic documents that may not reflect what actually occurred?

What This Means For You: Understanding EUO Requirements

If you’re dealing with a no-fault insurance claim in New York, understanding how EUOs work and how no-shows are proven is crucial for protecting your interests.

What is an Examination Under Oath (EUO)?

An EUO is a formal proceeding where you’re required to answer questions under oath about your accident and related claims. Insurance companies often use EUOs to:

  • Gather additional information about the claim
  • Assess the credibility of the claimant
  • Look for inconsistencies in the claim
  • Sometimes, create grounds for denying the claim

The Personal Knowledge Standard

When an insurance company claims someone didn’t show up for an EUO, they must prove this with personal knowledge. The SVP Med Supply case establishes that this can be satisfied by an attorney who:

  • Was present in the office on the scheduled date
  • Would have conducted or supervised the EUO
  • Can attest that the person didn’t appear

However, as the case notes, the attorney doesn’t need to specify exactly when they were present during the scheduled time.

Jason Tenenbaum’s criticism of these affidavits reflects a broader concern in the legal community about the quality and authenticity of routine legal documents. Here’s why this matters:

Lack of Specific Details

Many EUO no-show affidavits follow a template format that provides minimal specific information about what actually occurred on the scheduled date. This generic approach can raise questions about whether the affiant truly has personal knowledge of the events.

Questions About Office Protocols

As Jason notes, it’s worth questioning whether the described practice “really happens.” Do attorneys actually follow the protocols described in these affidavits, or are these documents created after the fact based on assumptions?

Impact on Case Outcomes

These affidavits can be used to deny claims or obtain summary judgment, making their accuracy critically important for claimants who may lose benefits based on questionable evidence.

The Virtual EUO Revolution

Jason Tenenbaum also predicts that virtual EUOs will improve this situation: “In the new virtual world, I think the no-show affidavits will be cleaner and more accurate.”

Why Virtual EUOs May Be Better

Virtual proceedings offer several advantages for documenting no-shows:

  • Digital Records: Most virtual platforms automatically create logs of who joined and when
  • Screenshot Evidence: Attorneys can capture screenshots showing empty waiting rooms
  • Email Trails: Virtual invitations and reminders create clearer documentation
  • Real-Time Documentation: Easier to document exactly what happened as it occurs

Reducing Ambiguity

Virtual EUOs eliminate many of the ambiguities present in traditional in-office proceedings. There’s less room for interpretation about whether someone showed up when the technology provides clear records of participation.

Common Scenarios and How They’re Handled

The Traditional In-Office EUO

In traditional EUOs, proving a no-show often relies on testimonial evidence from office staff or attorneys. This can create opportunities for disputes about what really happened.

Technical Issues in Virtual EUOs

Virtual EUOs can have their own complications, such as:

  • Technology failures that prevent attendance
  • Incorrect meeting links or passwords
  • Internet connectivity issues

However, these issues are often easier to document and verify than claims about in-person no-shows.

Protecting Yourself During EUO Proceedings

Before the EUO

  • Confirm all details: Verify the date, time, location (or virtual link), and required documents
  • Test technology: For virtual EUOs, test your equipment and connection beforehand
  • Document communications: Keep copies of all scheduling correspondence
  • Plan for contingencies: Have backup plans for transportation or technology issues

During the EUO

  • Arrive early: Whether in-person or virtual, early arrival demonstrates good faith
  • Bring required documents: Have all requested materials organized and ready
  • Stay calm and truthful: Answer questions honestly and don’t speculate
  • Ask for clarification: If you don’t understand a question, ask for clarification

If You Can’t Attend

  • Notify immediately: Contact the insurance company as soon as you know you can’t attend
  • Provide documentation: If you have a legitimate excuse, provide supporting documentation
  • Request rescheduling: Ask to reschedule promptly
  • Keep records: Document all communications about the rescheduling

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can I challenge an EUO no-show affidavit if I believe it’s inaccurate?

A: Yes, you can challenge affidavits that lack proper personal knowledge or contain inaccuracies. However, you’ll need evidence to support your challenge.

Q: What happens if I miss an EUO due to a legitimate emergency?

A: Contact the insurance company immediately and provide documentation of the emergency. Most companies will allow rescheduling for legitimate reasons if you act promptly.

A: Yes, EUOs typically require your personal attendance, even if you have an attorney. Your lawyer can usually attend with you to provide guidance.

Q: Can insurance companies use EUO no-shows to deny my entire claim?

A: Depending on the circumstances and your insurance policy terms, failure to attend an EUO can potentially result in claim denial. This is why attendance is so important.

Q: How can I prove I attended an EUO if the insurance company claims I didn’t?

A: Keep your own records, including travel receipts, parking stubs, or screenshots from virtual meetings. Consider bringing a witness or asking for written confirmation of your attendance.

The SVP Med Supply case reflects broader concerns about evidence quality in legal proceedings. While courts may accept minimal evidence of personal knowledge, the practical implications for claimants can be significant.

Jason Tenenbaum’s critique highlights the need for legal professionals to maintain high standards of evidence, even when courts might accept lower standards. This approach ultimately serves clients better and maintains the integrity of the legal process.

The Role of Technology

As legal proceedings increasingly move online, technology may help address some of the concerns about evidence quality and authenticity that have plagued traditional processes.

For Insurance Defense Attorneys

  • Maintain detailed, contemporaneous records of EUO proceedings
  • Use specific rather than generic language in affidavits
  • Implement clear office protocols for documenting no-shows
  • Consider using technology to create better documentation

For Plaintiff’s Attorneys

  • Scrutinize no-show affidavits for lack of personal knowledge
  • Prepare clients thoroughly for EUO proceedings
  • Document any scheduling or communication issues
  • Challenge insufficient evidence when appropriate

Looking Forward: The Evolution of EUO Practice

As Jason Tenenbaum predicts, virtual proceedings may lead to cleaner, more accurate documentation of EUO attendance and no-shows. This evolution could benefit all parties by:

  • Reducing disputes about attendance
  • Providing clearer evidence for court proceedings
  • Improving efficiency in the claims process
  • Enhancing fairness for all parties involved

The Bottom Line: Quality and Accuracy Matter

The SVP Med Supply case and Jason Tenenbaum’s commentary highlight an important truth: while courts may accept minimal evidence standards, the quality and accuracy of evidence affects real people’s lives and legal rights.

Whether you’re dealing with EUO proceedings, challenging no-show claims, or navigating other aspects of personal injury law, having experienced legal counsel can help ensure that evidence standards work in your favor rather than against you.

Don’t let questionable evidence or procedural technicalities undermine your legitimate claim. If you’re facing EUO requirements or challenges with no-fault insurance claims, professional legal guidance can help protect your rights and ensure that proper evidence standards are applied to your case.

Call 516-750-0595 for a free consultation to discuss your no-fault insurance claim or EUO concerns. Experience the difference that thorough, professional legal representation can make in your case.

Legal Context

Why This Matters for Your Case

New York's no-fault insurance system, established under Insurance Law Article 51, is one of the most complex insurance frameworks in the country. Every motorist must carry Personal Injury Protection coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of fault, up to $50,000 per person.

But insurers routinely deny valid claims using peer reviews, EUO scheduling tactics, fee schedule reductions, and coverage defenses. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum has handled over 100,000 no-fault cases since 2002 — from initial claim submissions through arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, trials in Civil Court and Supreme Court, and appeals to the Appellate Term and Appellate Division. Jason Tenenbaum is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.

His 2,353+ published legal articles on no-fault practice are cited by attorneys throughout New York. Whether you are dealing with a medical necessity denial, an EUO no-show defense, a fee schedule dispute, or a coverage question, this article provides the kind of detailed case-law analysis that helps practitioners and claimants understand exactly where the law stands.

About This Topic

New York No-Fault Insurance Law

New York's no-fault insurance system requires every driver to carry Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of who caused the accident. But insurers routinely deny, delay, and underpay valid claims — using peer reviews, IME no-shows, and fee schedule defenses to avoid paying providers and injured claimants. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has litigated thousands of no-fault arbitrations and court cases since 2002.

271 published articles in No-Fault

Keep Reading

More No-Fault Analysis

View all No-Fault articles

Was this article helpful?

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.

Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.

Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.

24+ years in practice 1,000+ appeals written 100K+ no-fault cases $100M+ recovered

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 no-fault 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.

Filed under: No-Fault
Jason Tenenbaum, Personal Injury Attorney serving Long Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum

Jason Tenenbaum is a personal injury attorney serving Long Island, Nassau & Suffolk Counties, and New York City. Admitted to practice in NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI, and Federal courts, Jason is one of the few attorneys who writes his own appeals and tries his own cases. Since 2002, he has authored over 2,353 articles on no-fault insurance law, personal injury, and employment law — a resource other attorneys rely on to stay current on New York appellate decisions.

Education
Syracuse University College of Law
Experience
24+ Years
Articles
2,353+ Published
Licensed In
7 States + Federal

Legal Resources

Understanding New York No-Fault Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how no-fault cases are litigated and resolved. The state's court system includes the Civil Court (for claims up to $25,000), the Supreme Court (the primary trial court for unlimited jurisdiction), the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts), the Appellate Division (divided into four Departments, with the Second Department covering Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and several upstate counties), and the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court). Each court has its own procedural requirements, local rules, and case-assignment practices that can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

For no-fault matters on Long Island, cases are typically filed in Nassau County Supreme Court (at the courthouse in Mineola) or Suffolk County Supreme Court (in Riverhead). No-fault arbitrations are heard through the American Arbitration Association, which assigns arbitrators throughout the metropolitan area. Workers' compensation claims go to the Workers' Compensation Board, with hearings at district offices across the state. Understanding which forum is appropriate for your case — and the specific procedural rules that apply — is essential for a successful outcome.

The procedural landscape in New York also includes important timing requirements that can affect your case. Most civil actions are subject to statutes of limitations ranging from one year (for intentional torts and claims against municipalities) to six years (for contract actions). Personal injury cases generally have a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5), while medical malpractice claims must be filed within two and a half years under CPLR 214-a. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including 30-day filing requirements for applications and 45-day deadlines for provider claims. Understanding and complying with these deadlines is critical — missing a filing deadline can permanently bar your claim, regardless of how strong your case may be on the merits.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum regularly practices in all of these venues. His office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, NY 11746, is centrally located on Long Island, providing convenient access to courts and offices throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City. Whether you need representation in a no-fault arbitration, a personal injury trial, an employment discrimination hearing, or an appeal to the Appellate Division, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. brings $24+ years of real courtroom experience to your case. If you have questions about the legal issues discussed in this article, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, no-obligation consultation.

New York's substantive law also presents distinct challenges. In motor vehicle cases, the no-fault system under Insurance Law Article 51 provides first-party benefits regardless of fault, but limits the right to sue for non-economic damages unless the plaintiff establishes a "serious injury" under one of nine statutory categories. This threshold — codified at Insurance Law Section 5102(d) — requires medical evidence showing more than a minor or subjective injury, and courts have developed detailed standards for each category. Fractures must be documented through imaging studies. Claims of permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use require quantified range-of-motion testing with comparison to norms. The 90/180-day category demands proof that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of their usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

In employment discrimination cases, the legal standards vary depending on whether the claim arises under state or local law. The New York State Human Rights Law employs a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision. If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the stated reason is pretextual. The New York City Human Rights Law, by contrast, applies a broader standard, asking whether the plaintiff was treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic.

Free Consultation — No Upfront Fees

Injured on Long Island?
We Fight for What You Deserve.

Serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of New York City. You pay nothing unless we win.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of injured New Yorkers since 2002. With over 24 years of experience handling personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation cases, Jason Tenenbaum brings the legal knowledge and courtroom experience your case demands. Every consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay absolutely nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Available 24/7  ·  No fees unless you win  ·  Serving Long Island & NYC

Injured? Don't Wait.

Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Call Now Free Review