If an insurer refuses a timely and proper request to reschedule, then an issue of fact arises as to whether the EUOs were scheduled to be held at a time or place which was "reasonably convenient" to plaintiff ( Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home , 68 Misc 3d 126[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50845[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]). One lower court has ruled that an insurer may not unreasonably refuse to adjourn the exams "where a good-faith request is made to re-schedule and the adjournment sought is not excessive" ( Diagnostic Radiographic Imaging, P.C. v GEICO , 42 Misc 3d 1205[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52247[U] [Civ Ct, Kings County 2013] ; see alsoA.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v USAA Gen. Indem. Co. , 9 Misc 3d 19, 22, 2005 NY Slip Op 25297 [App Term, 2d Dept 2005] ). Here, defendant's submissions indicate that the requests of plaintiff's counsel to reschedule were made days before the EUOs were to occur, even though defendant's counsel had mailed the scheduling letters well in advance before the scheduled EUOs.
If an insurer refuses a timely and proper request to reschedule, then an issue of fact arises as to whether the EUOs were scheduled to be held at a time or place which was "reasonably convenient" to plaintiff ( Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home , 68 Misc 3d 126[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50845[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]). One lower court has ruled that an insurer may not unreasonably refuse to adjourn the exams "where a good-faith request is made to re-schedule and the adjournment sought is not excessive" ( Diagnostic Radiographic Imaging, P.C. v GEICO , 42 Misc 3d 1205[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52247[U] [Civ Ct, Kings County 2013] ; see alsoA.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v USAA Gen. Indem. Co. , 9 Misc 3d 19, 22, 2005 NY Slip Op 25297 [App Term, 2d Dept 2005] ). Here, defendant's submissions indicate that the requests of plaintiff's counsel to reschedule were made days before the EUOs were to occur, even though defendant's counsel had mailed the scheduling letters more than a month before the scheduled EUOs.
Appearance at an EUO is required as a condition precedent to no-fault coverage (see Stephen Fogel Psychological v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 35 A.D.3d 720, 827 N.Y.S.2d 217 [2d Dept.2006] ). A duty of reasonableness and cooperation is, however, imposed on both parties in the verification process (see Diagnostic Radiographic Imaging v. GEICO, 42 Misc.3d 1205[A], 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 52247[U], 2013 WL 6996180 [Civil Ct., Kings Co.2013] ; 11 NYCRR 65–3.5 [e] ). In pertinent part, the applicable no-fault regulation, 11 NYCRR 65–3.5(e), provides as follows: “... When an insurer requires an examination under oath of an applicant to establish proof of claim, such requirement must be based upon the application of objective standards so that there is specific objective justification supporting the use of such examination. Insurer standards shall be available for review by department examiners.”