Features Main Page
Email A Friend
August 9, 2021
The Property Claims Investigation
July 28, 2021
Liability Insurance Is
January 16, 2021
Insurance HR Manager Who Participated in U.S. Capitol’s Duck Dynasty Insurrection Loses His Job
November 19, 2020
Former Work Comp Adjuster Who Is A Brother Of San Bernardino Shooter Gets 3 Years Of Probation In Immigration Fraud Scheme
|The Examination Under Oath as a Tool to Defeat Insurance Fraud|
By Barrry Zalma, Esq. CFE - July 29, 2021
The attorney, insurance claims professional or investigator who conducts the EUO can take a role similar to the role of a prosecutor without the usual constitutional restraints controlling testimony at a deposition or trial. [Hickman v. London Assurance Corporation, 184 Cal. 524, 195 P. 45 (1920)] A false statement as to any material fact during the EUO can cause the policy to be declared void, even if the fact has no relationship to the loss.
In Claflin the false testimony concerned a witness that would not affect the amount payable under the policy but to protect his reputation for veracity. The U. S. Supreme Court found that the witness of the injury was material to the investigation and declared the policy void for fraud because he made false statements under oath.
Contrary to the Belief of Lawyers for the Insured, the EUO Is Not an Adversary Proceeding like a Deposition in a Lawsuit.
The EUO is an investigative tool made available to the insurer. It allows the insurer to delve deeply and under oath into all aspects of the policy and the loss. The testimony to be elicited is not constrained by rules of discovery or the Codes of Civil Procedure.
The only restraint on the EUO is reasonableness. Unlimited questions are allowed. Only totally irrelevant and unreasonable questions dealing with facts completely outside the policy, its acquisition or the loss are not favored.
Irrelevant questions need to be tolerated if there is any possibility the question may lead to an inquiry about facts relevant to the policy or claim. In fact, there are no questions that are irrelevant in an EUO since each question may lead to more important information that could never have been learned about had not a foundation been laid by questions that appear, on their face, to be irrelevant. Since there are no rules for the taking of the EUO any question asked is important and must be answered. There is no judge to rule on objections and no court has the ability to enter into the taking of an EUO.
In Ram v. Infinity Select Ins., 807 F.Supp.2d 843 (2011), during the investigation of the insured’s claim, the plaintiff produced limited records. Where an insurer has reason to suspect fraud in relation to a theft claim, inquiries into the insured’s financial status are relevant and material, and a refusal to answer questions on that subject constitutes a material breach of the insurance contract. Plaintiff refused to discuss his 2008 income at his EUO and much of the income and employment information that he was willing to provide throughout the investigation of his claim was admittedly false. The Court concluded that Plaintiff’s failure to answer income questions constituted a breach of the duty to cooperate, and the court concluded that no reasonable juror could find otherwise.
In Powell v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 88 F.3d 271 (4th Cir.1996), the insureds’ home was destroyed by fire. Under their homeowners’ insurance policy, the insureds were required to “submit to questions under oath and sign and swear to them.” During the EUO, the insureds refused to answer several questions and “to turn over financial and other documents,” claiming that an EUO did not permit the insurer to “delve into financial or other information relating to the [insureds’] possible motives to intentionally set the fire … but … [was] instead limited … to an examination relating to the existence and extent of loss under the policy.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed, stating that an EUO “encompasses investigation into possible motives for suspected fraud.” Concluding that the EUO “is not restricted to amount of loss, but the insurer has the right to examine the insured and his witnesses as to any matter material to the insurer’s liability and the extent thereof.”
Therefore, in Phillips v. Allstate Indemn. Co., 156 Md.App. 729, 848 A.2d 681 (2004) and Lindsey v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 1597763 (D.Md., 2000) under the facts and circumstances of the case, the refusal to answer questions about his financial circumstances during the EUO violated the terms of the policy and constituted a failure to cooperate.
In Michigan, in the context of a homeowner’s insurance policy, that the remedy for failing to comply with a requirement to submit to an EUO is dismissal of the insured’s action. Thomson v. State Farm Ins. Co., 232 Mich.App. 38, 45, 592 N.W.2d 82 (1998); Yeo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 219 Mich.App. 254, 257, 555 N.W.2d 893 (1996). The court saw no reason to distinguish between a valid EUO in a homeowner’s insurance policy and a valid EUO in a policy providing uninsured motorist benefits. An insurance policy is much the same as any other contract; it is an agreement between the parties. Because the no-fault statute does not require uninsured motorist benefits, there is no public policy against enforcing the EUO provision in this context, and we must honor the intent of the parties’ contract. [Cruz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 241 Mich.App. 159, 614 N.W.2d 689 (2000)].
Barry Zalma, Esq. CFE is an insurance claims consultant and expert witness on insurance fraud. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org and www.zalma.com.
Adapted from Barry Zalma’s book, Insurance Fraud – Volume Two Available as a Kindle book and a paperback