Insurance 101 – Chapter 12 – Volume 10 – Denial for Failure to Appear – 2

 Denial for Failure to Appear – 2

One of the most important findings of the court with regard to the failure and refusal of the insured to appear at examination under oath is its finding that there was no requirement that the insurer prove it  was prejudiced as a result of the failure of the insured to appear. The  court concluded that there “is no California authority … that requires  an insurer to show prejudice before denying policy benefits to an  insured who has violated a policy provision requiring submission to  an examination under oath.”

The following video was adapted from my book, “Insurance Claims A Comprehensive Guide” Published by the National Underwriter Company and is available at the Zalma Insurance Claims Library

Legal Disclaimer

The author and publisher disclaim any liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this blog. The information provided is not a substitute for the advice of a competent insurance, legal, or other professional. The Information provided at this site should not be relied on as legal advice. Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to an individual situation.

Insurance 101 – Chapter 12 – Volume 9 – Denial for Failure to Appear

Denial for Failure to Appear

In California the Court of Appeal concluded that, as a matter of law, the insured violated the requirement of the insurance policy that he submit to an examination under oath; that the insurer could on that  basis deny his claim without a showing of prejudice; that the  availability of a deposition in litigation does not excuse his breach of the examination under oath requirement; that he had no valid bad  faith claim; and that the court properly dismissed his action.

The following video was adapted from my book, “Insurance Claims A Comprehensive Guide” Published by the National Underwriter Company and is available at the Zalma Insurance Claims Library

Legal Disclaimer

The author and publisher disclaim any liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this blog. The information provided is not a substitute for the advice of a competent insurance, legal, or other professional. The Information provided at this site should not be relied on as legal advice. Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to an individual situation.

Insurance 101 – Chapter 12 – Volume 8 – Reasonableness of the Examination Requirement

Reasonableness of the Examination Requirement

Courts have consistently held that the requirement in an insurance policy that an insured submit to an examination under oath is reasonable. More than 80 years ago, in Hickman v. London Assurance Corp., 184 Cal. 524, 529, 195 P. 45 (1920), the California Supreme Court expressly approved the reasonableness of an examination under oath as a means of “cross-examining” other statements of the insured.

The following video was adapted from my book, “Insurance Claims A Comprehensive Guide” Published by the National Underwriter Company and is available at the Zalma Insurance Claims Library

Legal Disclaimer

The author and publisher disclaim any liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this blog. The information provided is not a substitute for the advice of a competent insurance, legal, or other professional. The Information provided at this site should not be relied on as legal advice. Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to an individual situation.

Insurance 101 – Chapter 12 – Volume 7 – Document Production -2

Document Production -2

The insured in Rymsha attempted to defeat the insurer’s argument by claiming the insurer was not prejudiced by her failure to produce  documents. The Court rejected the argument and found that the failure to produce the reasonably requested pertinent information put the insurer in the untenable position of either paying the claim  without question and without any means by which to investigate its validity, notwithstanding the circumstances and amount of the loss described in her unsworn statement and examination under oath testimony, or being sued for breach of contract and unfair acts and practices.

The following video was adapted from my book, “Insurance Claims A Comprehensive Guide” Published by the National Underwriter Company and is available at the Zalma Insurance Claims Library

Legal Disclaimer

The author and publisher disclaim any liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this blog. The information provided is not a substitute for the advice of a competent insurance, legal, or other professional. The Information provided at this site should not be relied on as legal advice. Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to an individual situation.