Examination Under Oath

The examination under oath (EUO) is a topic often covered in this blog. When an EUO is requested by the insurance company, the policyholder who submitted the claim essentially has no choice but to acquiesce. A failure to do so would be deemed as a failure to cooperate or comply with a condition of the policy and from the insurance company’s perspective, that would be a basis to deny a claim altogether. I have yet to come across an instance where the insurer did not deny a claim due to a policyholder’s refusal to submit to an EUO.

Continue Reading In Washington, an Insurer Cannot Demand an Examination Under Oath Unless it is Material to the Claim Investigation

Have you ever heard insurance company representatives talk about how the policyholder "failed to give a meaningful examination under oath?" They may raise this issue if an insured defers some of the answers to the EUO questions to other people. So what happens if an insured appears for EUO but defers some of the answers to questions to others? That was one thing that occurred in a recent case involving State Farm in Florida.1

Continue Reading I Appeared For Examination Under Oath, But The Insurance Company Says It Was Not A Meaningful Examination – Who Determines If I Complied?

On Wednesday, I found myself in Orlando participating in an examination under oath (“EUO”). During discussions with the insurer’s legal counsel, the issue came up as to whether an EUO has any evidentiary value in a trial. It has always been my understanding that EUO testimony may be admissible at trial, but carrier’s counsel was of the opinion that an EUO was of no evidentiary value. I researched the question and thought it worthwhile to share my findings.

Continue Reading Is Your Examination Under Oath Testimony Admissible at Trial?

Many moons ago (on October 26, 2012, to be precise), I blogged about compliance with examination conditions. That blog noted conflicting views as to what is required of a policyholder under the policy’s condition for examination under oath (in the property insurance context) or compulsory medical examination (in the health, disability, or long-term care insurance contexts).

Continue Reading Compliance With Examinations Under Oath – Supreme Court of Florida Authority Hot Off The Press

A comment to my earlier post, The Importance of Examinations Under Oath, asked me to differentiate between a deposition and an examination under oath. A deposition is a discovery tool used during litigation to take the sworn testimony of a witness. In Colorado, depositions are governed by Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 30 that states that a party to a lawsuit may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral examination without leave of court except and that party’s attendance at the deposition may be compelled by subpoena as provided in Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 45. A party may also serve upon the person to be deposed a subpoena duces tecum that designates materials to be produced at the deposition. In an Examination Under Oath, sworn testimony is also taken, but only of the policyholders or people over whom the policyholders exert control.

Continue Reading Depositions versus Examinations Under Oath

When an insurance company requests an Examination Under Oath of multiple parties in the same claim such as a husband and a wife, it has been my practice to have spouses attend each other’s Examination Under Oath absent a policy provision in the insurance contract that prevents this practice. I find that this relaxes the policyholder and allows the other attendees to witness an Examination Under Oath firsthand.

Continue Reading Examinations Under Oath of Multiple Parties for the Same Claim

A policyholder who is asked to submit to an examination under oath (EUO) usually does not know exactly what an examination under oath entails. The lack of rules that govern examinations under oath, coupled with an insured’s unfamiliarity with the process, allows insurance lawyers to turn an information gathering session into a heated interrogation. This is especially true when the EUO lasts all day and the topics discussed do not seem to correlate in any way to the loss the insured suffered.

Continue Reading Examination Under Oath Requests Matter in North Carolina

While working on a case for recovery after hail pummeled a homeowner’s roof, I found a recent case that discussed Texas law regarding Examinations Under Oath (EUO). In this case, the insurer demanded that the EUO be videotaped. When the insured refused to submit to a videotaped EUO, the issue of failing to comply with conditions precedent arose. It was clear in the insurance policy that “no suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity until after full compliance by the insured with all the foregoing requirements, nor unless commenced within two years after the [event].”

Continue Reading Consequences of Failing to Comply with Request for Examination Under Oath and Submission of Insufficient Proof of Loss in Texas