Florida Insurance Claim Lawyer Blog

As we have discussed before, most insurance policies have several conditions that the insured must satisfy before an insured can file a lawsuit against the insurance company. One of the most common condition is having the insured sit for what is known as an Examination Under Oath (EUO.)

An EUO is a sworn statement given by someone who has made an insurance claim. Insurance companies typically use this procedure as part of their claims handling process and investigation. But they also employ an EUO if they suspect fraud, or if they are considering disputing coverage before going into litigation.

EUO's could be tape recorded, or even video taped. But it will certainly be transcribed, and you will be sworn to tell the truth. The sworn testimony that you give will also be used by the insurance company to serve their interest, and against you, if possible.

EUO's could also often times be very intimidating. Part of that intimidation may be to employ the use of overly aggressive defense lawyer in an effort to intimidate the insured into dropping their insurance claim.

One of the most common methods used in intimidating an insured is when the lawyer hired by the insurance company insists on conducting the EUO at their office as opposed to a mutually convenient time and place.

This is critical because in the insurance company friendly ruling in Goldman v. State Farm, 660 So.2d 300, (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), the Fourth District Court of Appeal specifically held that an insured's failure to sit for an EUO could jeopardize their insurance claim. But the court also opined that the EUO must take place at, "a mutually convenient time and place as contemplated by the policy."

Therefore, and absent specific language in the insurance policy dictating specifically where the EUO must take place, it is incumbent upon the parties to mutually agree upon the location of the EUO. This is bolstered by the fact that said position was specifically set forth in the Goldman ruling.

Continue reading "Examinations Under Oath Must Take Place at a Mutually Convenient Time and Place as Contemplated by the Insurance Policy" »

What is an Examination Under Oath?

Most insurance policies have several conditions that the insured must satisfy before an insured can file a lawsuit against the insurance company, and that is part of the insurance company's duty to investigate. One of the most common condition is having the insured sit for what is known as an Examination Under Oath (EUO.)

An EUO is a sworn statement given by someone who has made a claim due to water damage, wind damage, hurricane, roof claim, lightening, car accident, or some other form of risk that is insured. Insurance companies typically use this procedure as part of their claims handling process and investigation. But they also employ an EUO if they suspect fraud, or if they are considering disputing coverage before going into litigation.

It should be noted that the EUO could be tape recorded, or even video taped. But it will certainly be transcribed, and you will be sworn to tell the truth. The sworn testimony that you give will also be used by the insurance company to serve their interest, and against you, if possible.

Who has to sit and attend an EUO?

Every insurance policy has a "named insured." Therefore, the "named insured" has to appear for the EUO. However, in some instances, the "named insured" may not be the person with the most knowledge as to the claim of loss. As such, the insurance company will require the person with the most knowledge of the loss to appear in addition to the "named insured."

So for instance, the home could be owned by your elderly mother. Your elderly mother is the "named insured" since she owns the home. If the insurance policy is written in a broad enough context, it could be possible that you will also have to appear for an EUO even though you don't own the home, and you are not listed as "named insured." The reason being is that you may the best person with the most knowledge as to the loss in question.

At the EUO, an insurance company is limited in scope to the types of questions that can asked. In fact, a recent Florida appellate court ruling admonished insurance companies for their practices of attempting to intimidate insured's during EUO's when the insured appears without an attorney. Nonetheless, the insurance company will no doubt ask questions about your background, family history, educational history, employment history, claim history (other insurance claims), financial history (bankruptcies and the like), military history, criminal convictions, and credit history. This is all before they ask you one question about your claim. Most EUOs take several hours, and some could even take several days.

What if you don't cooperate?

Most insurance policies contain what is known as a "cooperation clause." What that means is that the named insured has a duty to cooperate with the insurance company during its investigation of the claim. And one of those requirements is often times to sit for an EUO.

Should the named insured fail to appear for scheduled EUO, then the insurance company could deny the claim. The reason being is that the named insured failed to comply with its duty to cooperate with the insurance company when it failed to sit for an EUO.

Additionally, just showing up for an EUO is not enough. The insurance company may require the named insured to bring documents such as tax returns, checking account information and the like to the EUO. The failure to bring those documents may also serve as grounds to deny the claim.

Moreover, an insured's failure to answer certain questions during an EUO may also serve as the basis for a denial of the claim by the insurance company. However, a recent Florida appellate court case made it understood that an insurance company should not intimidate an insured during an EUO to the point that an insured feels forced to walk out of an EUO.

Should You be worried?

Yes, you should worry if your insurance company asks you for an EUO. The insurance company is not going to hire a lawyer to interrogate you because they want to help you substantiate your claim. They suspect fraud or are collecting information, from you, in order to deny your claim. You have the right to have your own lawyer at an EUO. However, you are not required to have your own attorney. In fact, and as this recent case from the Third District Court of Appeal makes abundantly clear, the insurance company will be delighted if you appear without a lawyer. If you do not have an attorney, we recommend you consult with an attorney before attending any EUO.

Continue reading "The Importance of the Examination Under Oath (EUO) and How it Impacts your Insurance Claim" »

An insurance company was chastised by the Third District Court of Appeal for its conduct during an examination under oath.

An examination under oath is a common condition precedent to the filing a lawsuit against an insurance company that is found in just about every insurance policy. Should an insured fail to sit for an examination under oath then the insured jeopardizes potential insurance coverage for the loss.

Along those same lines, it is not uncommon for an insurance company to deny coverage even after the insured appears for an examination under oath but fails to answer certain questions asked during the examination. Often times the insured appears at an examination under oath without the presence of an attorney. In such circumstances it is not uncommon for the attorney hired by the insurance company to attempt to bully and intimidate the insured into either not answering certain questions by inquiring into areas that are simply not material to the claim, or by intimidating the insured into dropping the claim out right.

In light of such tactics it is of paramount importance to be represented by legal counsel prior to sitting for an examination under oath. At our firm, we worked for the insurance companies prior to opening our doors for business. We know the tactics that an insurance company will use to stonewall and delay your claim. Better to contact us today and before an examination under oath to ensure that your claim is properly handled and to maximize the potential recovery from the insurance company.

Court Ruling Taking an Insurance Company's Conduct to Task

In a case decided by the Third District Court of Appeal, the appellate court admonished an insurance company for its conduct during an examination under oath.

In that case, a truck owner had his truck stolen. The truck owner had prior unrelated criminal convictions on his record. The truck owner then made a claim with his insurance company seeking reimbursement for his stolen truck.

The insurance company then required the truck owner to come and sit for an examination under oath. The truck owner did just that, but without an attorney.

The truck owner felt so intimidated by the insurance company's attorney during the examination under oath that he walked out. The reason being is because the attorney for the insurance company spent almost the entire examination focusing on the truck owner's prior criminal convictions and spent very little time discussing the actual loss.

The truck owner then retained the services of an attorney, and filed a lawsuit against the insurance company. The insurance company ultimately paid the full amount of the claim. However, and despite obtaining a successful result from the insurance company, the trial court denied the truck owner's claim for attorney fees. The truck owner then filed an appeal with the third District Court of Appeal.

The Third District Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court was wrong and that the truck owner was entitled to attorney fees. In so ruling, the Third District Court of Appeal placed boundaries on the appropriate conduct during an examination under oath. Indeed, the Third District Court of Appeal concluded that the insurance company had unfortunately "decided to use the usual policy provision requiring a sworn statement as a license to make unwarranted and intrusive inquiries into the personal life of any insured who has the temerity to make a claim against it." The court also found that when the insurance company "invited [the truck driver] to withdraw his claim in lieu of responding" to questions was improper and harassing.

In light of those circumstances, the Third District Court of Appeal found that it was necessary for the truck driver to resort to litigation in order to resolve his claim. Reasoning that the "statute was enacted for the very purpose presented in this case - to discourage the games insurance companies play," the Third District Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court "improperly employed" the statute and that the insurance company could not "escape the consequences of what it tried to get away with in this case."

As such, the truck owner was awarded attorney fees to be paid by the insurance company.

Continue reading "An Appellate Court Chastised an Insurance Company for its Conduct during an Examination Under Oath and Awarded Attorney Fees to the Insured" »