Opinion ID: 767720
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Reasonableness of the Plaintiff's Explanations

Text: 17 In resolving this breach of contract claim, the trier of fact may be required to evaluate not only the reasonableness of the defendant's request, but also the reasonableness of the plaintiff's excuse. See, e.g., Cabe v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 544 N.Y.S.2d 862, 863 (2d Dep't 1989) ([T]he plaintiff's continued failure, without explanation or excuse, to provide the requested information constituted a material breach of the policy precluding recovery by the plaintiff.); Pogo Holding Corp. v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, 422 N.Y.S.2d 123, 124 (2d Dep't 1979) (The plaintiff has not satisfactorily explained its failure to fulfill its obligations under the policies.). If an insured had sufficiently good cause for his failure to appear at a scheduled examination, it might be unduly harsh and contrary to prevailing law to hold that he has forfeited all his rights under the contract, especially if the insured promptly sought to reschedule. Like all legal issues that require determinations of reasonableness, the issue is one of degree. 18 Plaintiff offers several reasons for his failure to attend the scheduled FCE's, including illness, a desire to have his attorney present, and concern that the examination might aggravate his injury. 5 New York courts have, at times, considered legitimate concern as to the health consequences of a physical examination a reasonable excuse for failure to appear. See, e.g., Lefkowitz v. Nassau County Med. Ctr., 462 N.Y.S.2d 903, 906 (2d Dep't 1983). The further question in any event arises whether the reasons proffered by the plaintiff were genuine. In our view, the genuineness and the reasonableness of plaintiff's proffered reasons raised triable issues of fact. 19 We have considered the other claims raised by the parties and find them to be without merit.