No Fault Defender – A Defense Attorney's Perspective on New York No-Fault Law

Five Boro Psychological & Licensed Master Social Work Servs., PLLC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 22333 (Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2012)

“Plaintiff does not allege that the claimant appeared for the scheduled EUOs. Rather, plaintiff contends that the EUO requests were unreasonable and that it mailed letters objecting to the reasonableness of the EUO requests. However, plaintiff’s objection letters were mailed approximately ten months after the initial EUO request was issued and, in fact, approximately four months after the plaintiff commenced this action. Because an appearance at an EUO is a condition precedent to an insurer’s liability under the policy and to the commencement of an action to recover under the policy, plaintiff is required to preserve its objection to the reasonableness of the EUO requests prior to commencing suit. Failure to so object bars the plaintiff from raising the objection as an excuse for the claimant’s non-appearances at scheduled EUOs (see Crescent Radiology, 31 Misc 3d 134 [A]; Jamaica Medical Suply, Inc., 36 Misc 3d 160 [A]; Viviane Etienne Medical Care, P.C., 35 Misc 3d 127 [A]).”