See the full video at https://youtu.be/qc3wxus6zyc  The most effective tool an insurance company has against fraud is the survey under oath. The right to compel an insured person to appear for examination under oath has been part of the standard fire policy in all U.S. states that have adopted the N.Y. standard fire insurance. The right was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in Claflin.v Commonwealth Insurance Company 110 U.S.C. 81, 3 S.C. 507, 28 L.Ed. 76 a decision unchanged since it was made in 1888.
When an insured is suspected of burn, or any other variation of insurance fraud, the insurer will almost always have to testify during an examination under oath. The insured often refuses to appear for examination under oath – an essential condition of the insurance system – and claims that the insurer's claim was a vicious attempt to deprive him of his right to self-magnification as set out in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.
I Gruenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co . 9 cal. 3d 566, 108 cal. Speed 480 (1973), the Supreme Court of California, ruled that an insured person had filed a lawsuit for breach of good faith and fair trade when the insurer denied the claim for refusal to testify under oath. In fact, the insured agreed to testify as soon as the criminal proceedings were concluded.
It seems that the pendulum is swinging. It is time for the insured's recognized – and insurers to enforce – rule of law principle that requires an insured person to appear immediately for examination under oath when required by his insurer, under a mandate under the standard California Fire Insurance Code, California Insurance Code §§ 2070 and 2071.
If Gruenberg stands for the proposal that insurers must wait until the insured is released from their criminal proceedings, the California Supreme Court should review Gruenberg and adopt the reasoning of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Mell [19459022andtheCaliforniaCourtofAppealsin Fremont and Altfillisch to eliminate a long delay that would make the defense of the insured's suit beyond the ability to prove the defense of fraud. To avoid the problem posed by the California Supreme Court, insurers in California should never file a tax relief complaint against an insured and force the insured to file, as he as a complainant could not claim the fifth amendment to prevent a deposit or trial where he can criminalize himself.
© 2020 – Barry Zalma
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to employment as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance management, bad faith insurance and insurance fraud almost equally for policyholders and policyholders. He also acts as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance-related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims lawyer and more than 52 years in the insurance industry. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and email@example.com.
Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine / ACE Legend Award.
For the past 53 years, Barry Zalma has devoted his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to enable insurance companies and their claims staff to become insurance claims personnel.
Go to Barry Zalma videos on Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/ c-262921
Read posts from Barry Zalma at https://parler.com/profile/Zalma/posts  Listen to the podcast: Zalma on Insurance https://anchor.fm/dashboard/episodes Zalma on Insurance
Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg/ [19459036gotoinsuranceclaimslibrary-https://zalmacom/blog/insurance-claims-library/ https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkV7pkuOtkiv6oakpgK33CNlNAYW-WBlLCOZFtgvpSdcL7R-tsWKfMVqG6fEuvmM7Hh7gUEJ7yKOdgHDbGl_cGAU%3D    as:  Like  Loading …