{"id":894557,"date":"2018-07-18T11:17:45","date_gmt":"2018-07-18T17:17:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=894557"},"modified":"2018-07-18T11:35:34","modified_gmt":"2018-07-18T17:35:34","slug":"everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/","title":{"rendered":"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Examinations Under Oath \u2014 But Were Afraid to Ask!"},"content":{"rendered":"

Edward Eshoo Jr. | Adjusting Today<\/a> | July 2018<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Property insurance policies impose certain duties or obligations upon\u00a0an insured in the event of loss or damage.1 One such enumerated duty is\u00a0submitting to an examination under oath (\u201cEUO\u201d), a formal proceeding\u00a0during which an insured is orally questioned by\u00a0a representative of the insurer, usually counsel,\u00a0under oath and in the presence of a court reporter\u00a0regarding matters relating to the loss, the claim and\u00a0the insurance. The insurer\u2019s EUO demand raises a\u00a0host of questions concerning the nature and the
\nextent of an insured\u2019s duty to submit to an EUO and\u00a0the consequence of non-compliance. This article will\u00a0address those questions.<\/p>\n

What is the Purpose of an EUO?<\/strong><\/p>\n

An EUO enables the insurer \u201cto possess itself of all\u00a0knowledge, and all information as to other sources\u00a0and means of knowledge, in regard to the facts,\u00a0material to its rights, to enable it to decide upon its\u00a0obligations, and to protect it against false claims.\u201d2<\/p>\n

Insurers use EUOs to investigate suspicious or\u00a0questionable claims that have a higher possibility\u00a0of being fraudulent. The EUO request often comes\u00a0after the claim has been referred to the insurer\u2019s\u00a0special investigative unit, or \u201cSIU,\u201d for further\u00a0investigation. SIU claim representatives are trained\u00a0to look for suspicious loss indicators that have been
\nassociated with fraudulent claims. These indicators\u00a0or \u201cred flags\u201d enumerated by the insurance industry\u00a0include: loss reported as suspect by an informant or\u00a0the authorities; an incendiary or arson fire; pending\u00a0mortgage foreclosure\/default; loss occurring just
\nafter coverage takes effect, just before it ceases, or\u00a0just after it has been increased; insured contacts\u00a0agent prior to a loss to verify coverage or the extent\u00a0of coverage; building for sale at the time of loss;\u00a0misrepresentation as to the claimed value of the
\nloss or damage; inconsistent loss facts; and insured\u00a0behavior such as insisting on early settlement,\u00a0avoiding mail or facsimile, or willing to negotiate\u00a0rather than substantiate the claim.<\/p>\n

Insurers also use EUOs to investigate coverage-related\u00a0issues, including: misrepresentation in the\u00a0procurement of the insurance; relationship between
\ninsureds; mortgagee and other creditor rights;\u00a0nature and extent of insurable interest; late notice\u00a0of loss; residency, vacancy or occupancy of insured\u00a0property; increase in hazard; and compliance with\u00a0warranty and protective safeguard endorsements.<\/p>\n

And, insurers use EUOs to investigate potential third-party\u00a0liability for a loss and their right of subrogation.<\/p>\n

Does an EUO Differ from a Deposition?<\/strong><\/p>\n

All too often, lawyers agree to represent an insured\u00a0at an EUO on the mistaken belief it is no different\u00a0than representing a party at a deposition. Despite\u00a0their similarity as sworn oral testimony taken before\u00a0trial,3 depositions and EUOs are different in the
\nfollowing respects.<\/p>\n

\u2022 The EUO obligation is contractual and is governed\u00a0by the express terms of the insurance policy.4\u00a0Therefore, the rules of civil procedure governing\u00a0the taking of depositions, such as the three-hour\u00a0time limit in Illinois or the seven-hour time limit in
\nfederal court, do not apply to an EUO.5<\/p>\n

\u2022 Insureds may be represented by counsel at an\u00a0EUO, though counsel technically is not permitted\u00a0to participate in the examination either by\u00a0asking questions or lodging objections.6 Still, insured\u2019s counsel should inquire at the EUO on\u00a0the materiality of questions. But, he or she must\u00a0exercise caution in instructing an insured not to
\nanswer questions based on immateriality, as a\u00a0subsequent determination of materiality may bar the insured\u2019s recovery.7<\/p>\n

While his or her role is limited during the EUO\u00a0to providing legal advice to the insured when\u00a0issues arise, counsel\u2019s real role is to prepare\u00a0the insured for the EUO. Effective preparation\u00a0includes obtaining information about the facts\u00a0and the circumstances surrounding the loss\u00a0and the claim. At a minimum, counsel should\u00a0request from the insurer: all post-lost statements\u00a0made by the insured, whether hand-written or
\ntape-recorded; post-loss investigative reports;\u00a0post-loss photographs; post-loss estimates and\u00a0appraisals of the damaged or destroyed property;\u00a0pre-loss underwriting inspection reports and\u00a0photographs; application(s) for insurance; and a\u00a0certified copy of the insurance policy. However, the\u00a0insurer\u2019s failure to provide information concerning
\nits investigation, including copies of previous\u00a0statements, is not an excuse for the insured\u2019s noncompliance\u00a0with the EUO requirement.8<\/p>\n

\u2022 EUOs are taken before litigation to augment the\u00a0insurer\u2019s investigation of the claim. In contrast, a\u00a0deposition is not part of the claim investigation process; it is designed to facilitate the gathering of information once an insurer has made a claim\u00a0decision, such as a denial of liability.9<\/p>\n

\u2022 Many courts view the EUO requirement akin to\u00a0a cooperation clause often included in a liability\u00a0policy.10 Cooperation is essential to the insurance\u00a0relationship because that relationship involves\u00a0a continuous exchange of information between\u00a0insurer and insured interspersed with activities\u00a0that affect the rights of both. The relationship can\u00a0function only if both sides cooperate. So, unlike a\u00a0deposition, an insured has a duty to disclose during\u00a0an EUO all facts within his or her knowledge.11<\/p>\n

\u2022 Depending on the language of the policy, an\u00a0insurer may be permitted to question insureds\u00a0separately in sworn examinations; whereas, it\u00a0would have no parallel right to do so under the\u00a0rules of civil procedure.12 In that regard, many\u00a0recently drafted property insurance policies\u00a0expressly provide for the insurer to examine\u00a0multiple insureds separately and out of the\u00a0presence of other insureds.13 Courts have reached
\nopposite conclusions though where the policy\u00a0contains no such express provision. Some courts\u00a0have permitted the insurer to examine each insured\u00a0separately out of the presence of the other insured,\u00a0reasoning that the sequestration procedure would
\nlead to more accurate information and would\u00a0discourage or prevent fraudulent claims.14 Other\u00a0courts have permitted an examination to be made\u00a0of each insured separately but within the presence\u00a0of the other insured, reasoning that the policy\u00a0does not mandate requiring insureds to submit\u00a0to an EUO outside the presence of other insureds
\nand that if the insurer desired to impose such a\u00a0condition it could have done so by an express term\u00a0in the policy.15<\/p>\n

\u2022 A party in a civil case can invoke his or her Fifth\u00a0Amendment right against self-incrimination\u00a0to prevent the disclosure of information that\u00a0could be used against him or her in a criminal\u00a0proceeding.16 Similarly, an insured may invoke the\u00a0Fifth Amendment during the EUO.17 Unfortunately,\u00a0most courts have concluded that the assertion
\nof this constitutional right will not insulate an\u00a0insured from the obligation to submit to an EUO\u00a0and to answer material questions during the EUO,\u00a0characterizing it as an impermissible attempt to\u00a0utilize the right not only as a shield, but also as a\u00a0sword.18 Thus, in deciding whether to submit to\u00a0an EUO when he or she is a suspect in a criminal\u00a0prosecution, an insured may have to choose\u00a0between possibly breaching the policy and\u00a0forfeiting benefits thereunder or revealing critical\u00a0information to state or federal authorities which\u00a0could be used against him or her. If, however,\u00a0the insurer has been requested to turn over to\u00a0the authorities information received from the\u00a0insured pursuant to an arson reporting immunity\u00a0act, then the insured\u2019s exercise of his or her Fifth Amendment right may not be a breach of the EUO\u00a0requirement.19<\/p>\n

\u2022 Absent good cause, a party deponent is rarely\u00a0required to give more than one deposition.20 On\u00a0the contrary, most property insurance policies\u00a0require an insured to submit to an EUO as often as\u00a0is \u201creasonably required.\u201d21 The \u201creasonably required\u201d
\nlanguage describes how often the insurer can\u00a0make requests for an EUO, and not the subject,\u00a0topic, and scope of the EUO on the one hand,\u00a0or the length, frequency, or time of the EUO on\u00a0the other hand. In other words, the number or\u00a0frequency of EUOs requested must be reasonable\u00a0under the circumstances.22<\/p>\n

\u2022 A deponent is not required to sign the deposition\u00a0transcript.23 Conversely, property insurance policies\u00a0normally require an insured to read and to sign a\u00a0copy of the EUO transcript to ensure the accuracy\u00a0of the testimony.24 Absent a request by the insurer
\nto do so, the insured\u2019s failure to sign or delay in\u00a0signing the transcript will not result in a forfeiture\u00a0of his or her rights under the policy unless the\u00a0insurer is prejudiced.25 If an insured\u2019s only omission\u00a0is failing to sign the transcript, then the submission\u00a0to an EUO may constitute substantial compliance\u00a0with the policy requirement.26<\/p>\n

\u2022 The submission by an insured to an EUO does not\u00a0deprive the insurer of the right to a deposition.27 Even though insurers get a second bite at the\u00a0testimony apple, a deposition should not duplicate\u00a0the EUO. It should be limited to those areas not
\ncovered in the EUO.28<\/p>\n

Who Must Submit to an EUO?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Property insurance policies typically require \u201cthe\u00a0named insured,\u201d \u201cthe insured,\u201d \u201can insured,\u201d or \u201cany\u00a0insured\u201d to submit to an EUO. All persons who fall\u00a0within the policy\u2019s definition of these terms must\u00a0comply with the EUO requirement, which in a
\nhomeowner\u2019s policy may be limited to spouses.29\u00a0Recognizing that the EUO obligation is contractual\u00a0and will be interpreted by courts in favor of the\u00a0insured if there is ambiguity, some insurers have drafted their policies clearly and broadly to require
\nemployees, representatives of the insured, members\u00a0of the insured\u2019s household, or others to appear for\u00a0an EUO to the extent it is within the insured\u2019s power
\nto do so.30<\/p>\n

Many insureds retain public insurance adjusters\u00a0following a loss to assist them in negotiating or\u00a0effecting the settlement of the claim.31 Unless the\u00a0policy is drafted broadly enough to include them,\u00a0public insurance adjusters are not required to
\nsubmit to an EUO.32 Nor is a mortgagee named in\u00a0a property insurance policy containing a standard\u00a0mortgagee clause obligated to submit to an EUO.33<\/p>\n

When it is an entity and not a person, such as a\u00a0corporation or a limited liability company, the named\u00a0insured may select a representative to be examined,
\nsuch as an officer, director, shareholder, member,\u00a0managing agent or key employee. The person\u00a0chosen must be prepared and knowledgeable\u00a0regarding the subjects of inquiry to allow the insurer\u00a0to conduct a meaningful examination.34<\/p>\n

Corporate officers, directors, shareholders, and key\u00a0employees and limited liability company members\u00a0who submit to an EUO may be required to answer\u00a0questions about their personal life and to produce\u00a0personal records such as tax returns, particularly if
\nthe policy\u2019s post-loss duties also require cooperation\u00a0in the investigation of the claim.35<\/p>\n

When Must the Insured Appear for an EUO?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Absent any time limit in the policy, an insurer must\u00a0request an EUO within a reasonable time after\u00a0the loss, which, in turn, means the insured must\u00a0submit to an EUO within a reasonable time after the\u00a0request.36 An insurer risks waiving its right to an EUO
\nif it does not request the EUO until after suit is filed.37\u00a0An insurer also may waive a breach of the EUO\u00a0requirement by denying liability on grounds other\u00a0than failing to submit to an EUO.38\u00a0 The insurer must give the insured reasonable notice\u00a0in writing of the EUO, stating a definite time and\u00a0place where the examination is to be held and
\ndesignating a representative before whom the\u00a0examination is to be conducted.39 A defense based\u00a0on an insured\u2019s failure to submit to an EUO is not\u00a0available if the notice or demand lacks the requisite\u00a0definiteness. Examples of defective notice include
\nnotice sent only to the insured\u2019s counsel and notice\u00a0which shifts to the insured the responsibility to\u00a0arrange the details of the EUO.40<\/p>\n

Can the EUO Requirement be Satisfied by the\u00a0Insured Submitting to a Recorded Interview?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A recorded interview of an insured taken shortly\u00a0after a loss does not constitute substantial\u00a0compliance with the policy requirement to submit\u00a0to an EUO.41 This is so even if the interview ends\u00a0with the insured stating he or she truthfully\u00a0answered the questions asked and even if the insured subsequently verifies the truthfulness of the
\ninterview.42 Likewise, the insured cannot satisfy the\u00a0EUO requirement by providing answers to written\u00a0questions.43<\/p>\n

Is the Insured Obligated to Answer Every\u00a0<\/strong>Question Asked During an EUO and to Produce\u00a0<\/strong>Every Document Demanded by the Insurer?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Although an insurer may conduct a \u201csearching\u00a0examination,\u201d44 questions posed of an insured\u00a0during an EUO must be confined to matters\u00a0\u201cmaterial\u201d to the loss, the claim, and the insurance.\u00a0The EUO notice is usually accompanied by a demand\u00a0to produce documents, which is another post-loss\u00a0duty required of an insured.45 Not only must it be\u00a0material, an insurer\u2019s demand for documents (or\u00a0releases and authorizations if the documents no\u00a0longer exist) also must be reasonable and specific.46 Documents and questions are material if they\u00a0concern \u201ca subject relevant and germane to the\u00a0insurer\u2019s investigation as it was then proceeding.\u201d47\u00a0For instance, if the insurer has a reasonable basis for\u00a0suspecting a fraudulent claim, then information and\u00a0documentation concerning the insured\u2019s financial\u00a0status and prior insurance losses are material to\u00a0determine whether the insured had a motive for\u00a0committing fraud.48<\/p>\n

What is the Consequence of the Insured\u2019s Refusal to Submit to an EUO and\/or Refusal to Answer\u00a0Material Questions Asked During an EUO?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A \u201cmaterial\u201d breach of the EUO requirement can\u00a0be a bar to suit and\/or recovery.49 While some\u00a0courts apply a \u201cstrict compliance\u201d standard, most\u00a0courts, including Illinois courts, apply a \u201csubstantial\u00a0compliance\u201d standard in determining whether\u00a0a breach of the EUO requirement was material.\u00a0Substantial compliance depends on (a) whether
\nan insured cooperated or engaged in a pattern of non-compliance and (b) whether an insured\u00a0provides a reasonable justification, explanation, or\u00a0excuse for non-compliance.50 An insured\u2019s reliance\u00a0on the advice of counsel in refusing to answer
\nquestions at an EUO is not a reasonable excuse\u00a0for failing to comply with the EUO requirement;51\u00a0but, death, physical or mental disability, and\u00a0deportation are reasonable excuses.52 Under a\u00a0substantial compliance standard, the non-compliance may be cured, either by abating or staying litigation,\u00a0or by a deposition, provided the insurer was not\u00a0substantially prejudiced.53 An insured who believes it\u00a0has a reasonable basis for refusing to comply with the\u00a0insurer\u2019s demand for an EUO should promptly file a
\ndeclaratory judgment action seeking a determination\u00a0of its rights and obligations under the policy.54<\/p>\n

Can One Insured\u2019s Breach of the EUO\u00a0Requirement be Imputed to Another Insured\u00a0Who Submitted to an EUO?<\/strong><\/p>\n

An insured\u2019s breach of the EUO requirement can be\u00a0imputed to an innocent co-insured (another insured\u00a0who complied with the EUO requirement such as a\u00a0spouse) if (a) the obligation to submit to an EUO is a\u00a0\u201cjoint\u201d as opposed to a \u201cseverable\u201d or \u201cindependent\u201d
\nobligation among multiple insureds 55 and (b) the\u00a0joint obligation provision is consistent with any\u00a0mandatory minimum level of protection afforded by\u00a0statute, such as the Standard Fire Policy.56<\/p>\n

What is the Consequence of Concealment or Misrepresentation During an EUO?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Property insurance policies invariably contain a provision traditionally referred to in the insurance\u00a0industry as the \u201cfraud and false swearing\u201d clause,\u00a0which operates to void coverage if an insured\u00a0intentionally conceals or misrepresents a material\u00a0fact concerning (a) the coverage, (b) the covered\u00a0property, (c) the insured\u2019s interest in the covered\u00a0property, or (d) a claim under the coverage.57<\/p>\n

To work a forfeiture and to void coverage under a\u00a0\u201cfraud and false swearing\u201d clause, the concealment\u00a0or misrepresentation must be made by the insured\u00a0knowingly and willfully regarding a material matter with the intent to deceive and to defraud the\u00a0insurer.58 An innocent mistake or mere inadvertence, however, cannot sustain a charge of fraud or false\u00a0swearing.59 Also, it does not follow that an insured\u00a0is guilty of fraud or false swearing simply because\u00a0there is a difference of opinion on the value of\u00a0insured property, though an insured cannot inflate\u00a0or exaggerate the value to gain a bargaining
\nadvantage in the settlement of the claim.60<\/p>\n

Materiality of a false statement is not determined\u00a0by whether the false answer relates to a matter or\u00a0subject that proves to be decisive or significant in the\u00a0ultimate disposition of the claim. A false statement\u00a0is material if it might have affected the attitude and\u00a0the action of the insurer.61 It also is material if it may\u00a0be said to have been calculated either to discourage,\u00a0mislead, or deflect the insurer\u2019s investigation in any\u00a0area that might seem to the insurer, at that time, a\u00a0relevant or productive area to investigate.62<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

An EUO can be an effective tool in the investigation\u00a0and the resolution of a property insurance claim.\u00a0Yet, the escalating number of EUO cases throughout\u00a0the country appear to be more about strategy than\u00a0truth.63 This cottage industry of EUO litigation shows\u00a0that wrong advice given by counsel to an insured can\u00a0lead to a material breach of the EUO requirement,\u00a0resulting in a forfeiture of coverage. Because an EUO\u00a0is not just another deposition, an insured\u2019s counsel\u00a0must be well-versed on the nature and the extent of\u00a0the contractual duty of an insured to submit to an\u00a0EUO and the consequence of non-compliance.<\/p>\n

____________________
\n1 Insurance Services Office, Inc. (\u201cISO\u201d) Homeowners (\u201cHO\u201d) Form 00 03 10 00 at p. 13 of 22; ISO Commercial Property (\u201cCP\u201d) Form 00 10 04 02 at p. 9 of 14.<\/p>\n

2 Claflin v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 110 U.S. 76, 82 (1884).<\/p>\n

3 Like deposition testimony, EUO testimony can impeach an insured if his or her testimony at trial is inconsistent or conflicts with such testimony. Hart v. Mechanics & Traders Ins. Co., 46 F.Supp. 166 (W.D.La. 1942).\u00a0Like deposition testimony, EUO testimony also is an admission of a party opponent, and admissible as direct evidence in support of an insurer\u2019s affirmative defenses. McIntosh v. Eagle Fire Ins. Co. of N.Y., 325 F.2d 99 (8th Cir. 1963);\u00a0Lentz v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2001 WL 38934 (Mass. App. Ct.).<\/p>\n

4 Ahmadi v. Allstate Ins. Co., 22 P.3d 576 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).<\/p>\n

5\u00a0Nat\u2019l Athletic Sportswear, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 528 F.3d 508 (7th Cir. 2008).<\/p>\n

6 See Gordon v. St. Paul Fire & Mar. Co., 163 N.W. 956 (Mich. 1917); Shelter Ins. Cos. v. Spence, 656 S.W.2d 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).<\/p>\n

7\u00a0In Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Harvey, 662 F.Supp. 216 (D. Ariz. 1987), the district court declined to find that the insured breached the EUO requirement in failing to answer certain questions because the insurer\u2019s counsel failed to\u00a0explain during the EUO the relevance and the materiality of the questions.<\/p>\n

8 See Lester v. Allstate Ins. Co., 743 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2014); Morris v. Econ. Fire & Cas. Co., 848 N.E.2d 663 (Ind. 2006). Nor is the insurer\u2019s refusal to execute a confidentiality agreement that imposes limitations on the insurer\u2019s use of\u00a0the insured\u2019s personal information an excuse for the insured\u2019s non-compliance with the EUO requirement. Safeco Ins. Co. of Oregon v. Masood, 330 P.3d 61 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).<\/p>\n

9 See Zavakos Enters, Inc. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2006 WL 83502 (S.D. Ohio); Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Nilsen, 745 So.2d 264 (Ala. 1998).<\/p>\n

10 See, e.g., Staples v. Allstate Ins. Co., 295 P.3d 201 (Wash. 2013).<\/p>\n

11 See, e.g., Brizuela v. CalFarm Ins. Co., 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 661 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004); Piser v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 405 Ill.App.3d 341 (1st Dist. 2010).<\/p>\n

12 See Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co., 660 So.2d 300 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).<\/p>\n

13 ISO HO Form 00 03 10 00 at p. 13 of 22 (\u201cAs often as we reasonably require\u2026 [s]ubmit to an examination under oath, while not in the presence of another \u2018insured\u2019\u2026.\u201d); ISO CP Form 00 10 04 02 at p. 9 of 14 (\u201cWe may examine\u00a0any insured under oath, while not in the presence of any other insured\u2026.\u201d).<\/p>\n

14 See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tan, 691 F. Supp. 1271 (S.D. Cal. 1988); Lidawi v. Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co., 112 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App. 2003).<\/p>\n

15 See U.S. Fid. and Guar. Co. v. Welch, 854 F.2d 459 (11th Cir. 1988); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Hill, 722 S.W.2d 609 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).<\/p>\n

16 See, e.g., Cordeck Sales, Inc. v. Constr. Systems, Inc., 382 Ill. App.3d 334 (1st Dist. 2008).<\/p>\n

17 The insurer\u2019s right to require an insured to submit to an EUO does not include the right to require the insured to submit to a polygraph test. Mize v. Hartford Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp. 550 (W.D.Va. 1982); Walker v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins.\u00a0Co., 568 S.W.2d 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977). Nor does it include the right to conduct a warrantless search of an insured\u2019s residence. Honeycutt v. Aetna Ins. Co., 510 F.2d 340 (7th Cir. 1975).<\/p>\n

18 See Warrilow v. Superior Court of Arizona, 689 P.2d 193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984); Hickman v. London Assur. Corp., 195 P. 45 (Cal. 1920); Tarcicani v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 822 A.2d 341 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003); Abraham v. Farmers Home\u00a0Mut. Ins. Co., 439 N.W.2d 48 (Minn. 1989).<\/p>\n

19 Weathers v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 793 F.Supp. 1002 (D.Kan. 1992) (court\u2019s instruction to jury allowed it to consider the insured\u2019s constitutional rights in determining whether the insured breached the EUO requirement).<\/p>\n

20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 (a) (2) (ii) for example, a party must obtain leave of court to take a second deposition.<\/p>\n

21 ISO HO Form 00 03 10 00 at p. 13 of 22 (\u201cAs often as we reasonably require\u2026submit to an examination under oath\u2026.\u201d); ISO CP Form 00 10 04 02 at p. 9 of 14 (\u201cWe may examine any insured under oath\u2026at such times as may\u00a0be reasonably required\u2026.\u201d).<\/p>\n

22 Foster v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 674 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2012).<\/p>\n

23 Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 207(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(f), the deponent is afforded the right to examine the deposition after it has been transcribed, which right may be waived.<\/p>\n

24 ISO HO Form 00 03 10 00 at p. 13 of 22 (\u201cAs often as \u2018we\u2019 reasonably require\u2026submit to an examination under oath,\u2026and sign the same.\u201d); ISO CP Form 00 10 04 02 at p. 9 of 14 (\u201cIn the event of an examination, an insured\u2019s\u00a0answers must be signed.\u201d); Country Mutual Ins. Co. Home Insurance Policy Form at pp. 29-30 of 35 (\u201cAs often as \u2018we\u2019 reasonably require\u2026 submit to examinations under oath, \u2026 and sign the same within a reasonable amount\u00a0of time of \u2018our\u2019 request, after having been informed: (1) of\u2018your\u2019 right to counsel; and (2) that \u2018your\u2019 answers may be used against \u2018you\u2019 in later civil proceedings or criminal proceedings;\u201d).<\/p>\n

25 See Wood v. Allstate Ins. Co., 21 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 1994); Varda, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N.A., 45 F.3d 634 (2nd Cir. 1995); Campuzano v. Sentinel Ins. Co., 2015 WL 520901 (S.D.Tex.).<\/p>\n

26 See, e.g., Herman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 17 P.3d 631 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).<\/p>\n

27 Joe\u2019s Mkt. Fish, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 1998 WL 851504 (N.D. Ill.); Kamin v. Central States Fire Ins. Co., 22 F.R.D. 220 (E.D.N.Y. 1958).<\/p>\n

28 Jones v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 129 F.R.D. 170 (N.D. Ind. 1990).<\/p>\n

29 See, e.g., GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rock, 2009 WL 1854452 (N.D. Miss.); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Miceli, 164 Ill. App. 3d 874 (1st Dist. 1987).<\/p>\n

30 See ISO HO Form 00 03 10 00 at p. 13 of 22 (\u201cThese duties must be performed either by you, an \u2018insured\u2019 seeking coverage, or a representative of either.\u201d). See also West v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 868 F.2d 348 (9th Cir. 1990); Barrie v. Great N. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 3984159 (E.D. Pa.).<\/p>\n

31 The Illinois Insurance Code defines a public adjuster as a person, who for compensation, acts or aids an insured in adjusting a claim arising under an insurance contract insuring the real or personal property of the insured. 215\u00a0ILCS 5\/1510.<\/p>\n

32 See Palace Cafe v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 97 F.2d 766 (7th Cir. 1938); H.T. Cain v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2094235 (S.D. Miss.); Florida Gaming Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 502 F. Supp.2d 1257 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Although a public
\nadjuster may not be not required to submit to an EUO, a public adjuster can attend an EUO unless the policy expressly excludes him or her from attending. See Nawaz v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Co., 91 So.2d 187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012).<\/p>\n

33 See U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Annunziata, 67 N.Y.2d 229 (1986). A standard mortgagee clause grants special protection for the interest of a mortgagee named in the policy, in effect setting up a separate contract between the insurer\u00a0and the mortgagee. Among other things, it grants continuing coverage for the benefit of the mortgagee in the event the policy is voided by some act of the insured, such as arson.See 4 Couch on Insurance 3d sec. 65:8 et. seq. (2018).<\/p>\n

34 See, e.g., 2000 Leslie Condo Ass\u2019n, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 965 F.Supp.2d 1386 (S.D. Fla. 2013); Paulucci v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 190 F.Supp.2d 1312 (M.D.Fla. 2002).<\/p>\n

35 See, e.g., Green v. St. Paul Fire and Mar. Ins. Co., 691 F.Supp. 700 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); Miracle Sound, Inc. v. N.Y. Prop. Ins. Underwriting Ass\u2019n, 564 N.Y.S.2d 346 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). But see Glados, Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 888 F.2d 1309\u00a0(11th Cir. 1987); Double G.G. Leasing, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd\u2019s, London, 2008 WL 2345205 (Conn. Super. Ct.).<\/p>\n

36 See Marquis v. Farm Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 628 A.2d 644 (Me. 1993); Home Ins. Co. v. M.T. Olmstead, 355 So.2d 310 (Miss. 1978).<\/p>\n

37 See Crowley v. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co., 70 F.Supp. 547 (4th Cir. 1947); Willis v. Huff, 736 So.2d 1272 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999); In re Cypress Texas Lloyds, 437 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. 2011)<\/p>\n

38 See, e.g., Kerr v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 934 F.Supp.2d 853 (M.D. La. 2012); Ganz v. Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 551 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989).<\/p>\n

39 See Kisting v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 416 F.2d 967 (7th Cir. 1969); Abudayeh v. Fair Plan Ins. Co., 481 N.Y.S.2d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984).<\/p>\n

40 See, e.g., Adamowicz v. N. Country Ins. Co., 2009 WL 4348479 (N.Y. App. Div.); Weber v. Gen. Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp., 462 N.E.2d 422 (Ohio\u00a0Ct. App. 1983).<\/p>\n

41 See Pervis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 901 F.2d 944 (11th Cir. 1990); Fineberg v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 438 S.E.2d 754 (N.C. Ct. App.\u00a01994); State Farm Gen. Ins. Co v. Lawlis, 773 S.W.2d 948 (Tex. App. 1984).<\/p>\n

42 See Knowledge A-Z, Inc. v. Sentry Ins. Co., 857 N.E.2d 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); Downie v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 929 P.2d 484 (Wash. Ct.\u00a0App. 1997).<\/p>\n

43 See Saucier v. U.S. Fid. and Guar. Co., 765 F.Supp. 334 (S.D. Miss. 1991); Ransom v. Selective Ins. Co., 550 A.2d 1006 (N.J. 1998).<\/p>\n

44 Gipps Brewing Corp. v. Cent. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 147 F.2d 6, 13 (7th Cir. 1945).<\/p>\n

45 ISO HO Form 00 03 10 00 at p. 13 of 22 (\u201cAs often as we reasonably require\u2026[p]rovide us with records and documents we request and\u00a0permit us to make copies.\u201d); ISO CP Form 00 10 04 02 at p. 9 of 14 (\u201cAs often as may be reasonably required, permit us to\u2026examine your
\nbooks and records.\u201d).<\/p>\n

46 See Chavis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 346 S.E.2d 496 (N.C. 1986).<\/p>\n

47 Fine v. Bellafonte Underwriters Ins. Co., 725 F.2d 179, 183 (2nd Cir. 1984).<\/p>\n

48 See Woods, 21 F.3d at 747; Powell v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 88 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 1996); Deguchi v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2008 WL 1780271 (D. Haw.);\u00a0Maurice v. Allstate Ins. Co., 570 N.Y.S.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991); Dlugosz v. Exch. Mut. Ins. Co., 574 N.Y.S.2d 864 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990).<\/p>\n

49 See 13 Couch on Insurance 3d sec. 196:22-196:31 (2018).<\/p>\n

50 See, e.g., Woltman v. Am. States Ins. Co., 2006 WL 1305236 (C.D. Ill); Hartshorn v. State Farm Fire Ins. Co., 361 Ill. App.3d 731 (2nd Dist.\u00a02005); Patel v. Allstate Ins. Co., 211 Ill. App.3d 324 (1st Dist. 1991); Piro v. Pekin Ins. Co., 162 Ill. App.3d 225 (1st Dist. 1987); Horton v. Allstate\u00a0Ins. Co., 125 Ill. App.3d 1034 (1st Dist. 1984). See also Solano v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 15 So.3d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).<\/p>\n

51 Abdelhamid v. Fire Ins. Exch., 106 Cal. Rptr. 3d 26 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010); Evans v. Int\u2019l Ins. Co., 562 N.Y.S.2d 692 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). Nor is a\u00a0refusal to submit to an EUO unless it is a stenographic recording, as opposed to an audio recording, a reasonable excuse. N.C. Farm Bur.\u00a0Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lilley, 2018 WL 414135 (N.C. App.).<\/p>\n

52 See Roberto v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 177 F.2d 811 (7th Cir. 1949); Blackburn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 329 S.E.2d 284 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).\u00a0Postponement due to unavailability of counsel is not a failure to submit to an EUO, and thus is a reasonable excuse. McCullough v. Travelers\u00a0Cos., 424 N.W.2d 542 (Minn. 1988).<\/p>\n

53 See Crowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 259 Ill. App. 3d 456 (5th Dist. 1994). Under ISO HO Form 00 03 10 00, there is no duty to provide\u00a0coverage under the policy if the failure to submit to an EUO is \u201cprejudicial\u201d to the insurer.<\/p>\n

54 See DiFrancisco v. Chubb Ins. Co., 662 A.2d 1027 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995).<\/p>\n

55 See Miles v. Great N. Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2998529 (D. Mass.). See, e.g., Aurelius v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 384 Ill. App.3d 969 (2nd Dist.\u00a02008); Wasik v. Allstate Ins. Co., 351 Ill. App.3d 260 (2nd Dist. 2004).<\/p>\n

56 Many states have adopted the 1943 New York Standard Fire Policy (\u201cSFP\u201d) as the minimum coverage upon which an insured can rely\u00a0under any fire insurance policy issued in that state. Any provision which provides less coverage than the SFP is unenforceable. See,\u00a0e.g., Lundquist v. Allstate Ins. Co., 314 Ill. App.3d 240 (2nd Dist. 2000). The SFP requires \u201cthe insured\u201d to submit to an EUO. Courts have\u00a0concluded that the term \u201cthe insured\u201d as used throughout the SFP indicates an intent to provide \u201cseveral\u201d or \u201cindependent\u201d obligations\u00a0as to each insured, such that the wrongful acts of one insured defeats the rights of the malfeasant insured, but not those of an innocent
\nco-insured. See, e.g., Streit v. Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co., 863 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2017); Century-National Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 51 Cal.4th 564 (Cal.\u00a02011); Icenhour v. Cont\u2019l Ins. Co., 365 F.Supp.2d 743 (S.D.W. Va. 2004); Volquardson v. Hartford Ins. Co., 647 N.W.2d 599 (Neb. 2002).<\/p>\n

57 ISO HO Form 00 03 10 00 at p. 13 of 22; ISO CP Form 00 10 04 02 at p. 9 of 14.<\/p>\n

58 Claflin, 110 U.S. at 82. See Weininger v. Metro. Fire Ins. Co., 359 Ill. 584 (1935).<\/p>\n

59 See, e.g., Harold J. Warren Co., v. Fed. Mut. Ins. Co., 386 F.2d 579 (1st Cir. 1967); Sentry Ins. Co. v. Rice, 2011 WL 2965799 (C.D. Ill.).<\/p>\n

60 See, e.g., Trzcinski v. Am. Cas. Co. 953 F.2d 307 (7th Cir. 1992); Lykos v. Am. Home Ins. Co., 609 F.2d 314 (7th Cir 1979); Transp. Ins. Co. v.\u00a0Hamilton, 316 F. 2d 294 (10th Cir. 1963); Nagel-Taylor Auto. Supplies, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. of Ill., 81 Ill. App.3d. 607 (4th Dist. 1980).<\/p>\n

61 See Fine, 725 F.2d at 183-184.<\/p>\n

62 See Barth v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 228 Ill.2d 163 (2008); A & A Inc. v. Great Cent. Ins. Co., 259 Ill. App.3d 73 (1st Dist. 1994); Passero v.\u00a0Allstate Ins. Co., 196 Ill. App.3d 602 (1st Dist. 1990).<\/p>\n

63 Whistler\u2019s Park, Inc. v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass\u2019n, 90 So.3d 841 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Edward Eshoo Jr. | Adjusting Today | July 2018 Introduction Property insurance policies impose certain duties or obligations upon\u00a0an insured in the event of loss or damage.1 One such enumerated duty is\u00a0submitting to an examination under oath (\u201cEUO\u201d), a formal proceeding\u00a0during which an insured is orally questioned by\u00a0a representative of the insurer, usually counsel,\u00a0under oath… Continue reading Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Examinations Under Oath \u2014 But Were Afraid to Ask!<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[3],"tags":[9895,475,3],"class_list":["post-894557","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insurance-claims","tag-advise-consult","tag-examinations-under-oath","tag-insurance-claims","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nEverything You Always Wanted to Know About Examinations Under Oath \u2014 But Were Afraid to Ask! - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"examination under oath (\u201cEUO\u201d), a formal proceeding\u00a0during which an insured is orally questioned by\u00a0a representative of the insurer\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Examinations Under Oath \u2014 But Were Afraid to Ask! - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"examination under oath (\u201cEUO\u201d), a formal proceeding\u00a0during which an insured is orally questioned by\u00a0a representative of the insurer\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-07-18T17:17:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-18T17:35:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Examinations Under Oath \u2014 But Were Afraid to Ask!\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-07-18T17:17:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-18T17:35:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/\"},\"wordCount\":5112,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"Examinations Under Oath\",\"Insurance Claims\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Insurance Claims\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/\",\"name\":\"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Examinations Under Oath \u2014 But Were Afraid to Ask! - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-07-18T17:17:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-18T17:35:34+00:00\",\"description\":\"examination under oath (\u201cEUO\u201d), a formal proceeding\u00a0during which an insured is orally questioned by\u00a0a representative of the insurer\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Examinations Under Oath \u2014 But Were Afraid to Ask! - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"examination under oath (\u201cEUO\u201d), a formal proceeding\u00a0during which an insured is orally questioned by\u00a0a representative of the insurer","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Examinations Under Oath \u2014 But Were Afraid to Ask! - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"examination under oath (\u201cEUO\u201d), a formal proceeding\u00a0during which an insured is orally questioned by\u00a0a representative of the insurer","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2018-07-18T17:17:45+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-18T17:35:34+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Examinations Under Oath \u2014 But Were Afraid to Ask!","datePublished":"2018-07-18T17:17:45+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-18T17:35:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/"},"wordCount":5112,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","Examinations Under Oath","Insurance Claims"],"articleSection":["Insurance Claims"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/","name":"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Examinations Under Oath \u2014 But Were Afraid to Ask! - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-07-18T17:17:45+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-18T17:35:34+00:00","description":"examination under oath (\u201cEUO\u201d), a formal proceeding\u00a0during which an insured is orally questioned by\u00a0a representative of the insurer","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/everything-always-wanted-know-examinations-oath-afraid-ask\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3KIl","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/894557","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=894557"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/894557\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":894561,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/894557\/revisions\/894561"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=894557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=894557"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=894557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}