قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / A video of the survey under Oath & Claflin v. Commonwealth

A video of the survey under Oath & Claflin v. Commonwealth



See the entire video at https://youtu.be/SZHkAZ33dZU [1965653] The ruling from the US Supreme Court CLAFLIN et al. mot COMMONWEALTH INS. CO. OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, et al, 110 U.S. Pat. 81, 3 S.Ct. 507, 28 L.Ed. 76 ( 14 January 1884) is the main precedent which states that a false affidavit in an insurance investigation under oath requires that the claim be denied and the insurance revoked even if the insured did not intend to defraud the insurer of the amount of the loss.

THE CAUSE OF AN EUO

The purpose of the provisions of the insurance policies, which required the insured to submit to an examination under oath, is reduced to writing, was to enable the company to have itself of all knowledge and all information about other sources and means of knowledge, with respect to facts, essential to their rights, to enable them to decide on their obligations and to protect them from false claims. And every interrogation that was relevant and relevant in such an investigation was essential, in the sense that a correct answer to that was the content of the insured's obligation. A false answer to all the facts of the request would be fraudulent. If it did, with the intent to deceive the insurer, it would be fraudulent. If it achieved its result, it would be a fraud. if it failed, it would be an attempted fraud. And if the case was substantial and the claim was false, as far as knowledge of the party who did it, and was deliberately done, the intention to deceive the insurer would necessarily be implicit, for the law presupposes every human being to think the natural consequences of his actions. No one can be allowed to say, in relation to his own statements on a material question, that he did not expect to be believed; and if they are deliberately false and deliberately made, the fact that they are essential is proof of attempted fraud, since their materiality in the eyes of the law consists in their tendency to influence the conduct of the party who has an interest in them and to whom they are addressed. "Fraud." In Mr. Justice CATRON, i Lord v. Goddard 13 Hur. 198, "means an intention to deceive." "Where were you," said SHIPLEY, C. J., in Hammatt v. Emerson 27 Me. 308-326, & # 39; has made a false representation, knowing that it is false, the law derives from the fact that he did so with intent to deceive. & # 39; & # 39; If one person tells a lie, the natural and obvious consequence of which, if one acts, is harm to another, that is, fraud in law. & # 39; BOSANQUET, J., i Foster v. Charles 7 Bing. 105; Polhill v. Walter 3 Barn. & Adol. 114; Sleeper v. Ins. Co. 56 N. H. 401; Leach v. Republic F. Ins. Co. 58 N. H. 245.

The fact that Murphy had an insurable interest in the goods covered by the policy was directly questioned between the parties. According to the terms of the contract, he had to answer all the questions that were put to him and that were relevant to this investigation. His answer to every question relevant to that point was essential and was made by the agreement and because it was essential as evidence; so that any false statement on that subject, knowingly made, was intended to be deceptive and was fraudulent. And it does not affect this conclusion to assume that the purpose of Murphy's making these false statements was not to deceive and deceive the companies, as set out in the exemption list and certificate, but to prevent the exposure of false statements previously made to commercial agencies for to increase his credit. The meaning of that, we take to be quite simply this, that his motive for repeating false statements to the insurance companies was to protect his own reputation for truth, and that he would not have done them without that matter. But what is it, but that he was compelled to make statements as false, intended to deceive the insurance companies, so that they could not discover, and others through them, the falsity of his earlier statements; in other words, that he was trying, through fraud against companies, to protect his reputation and credit? Anyway, insurance companies tried scams.


© 2020 – Barry Zalma

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to working as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance management, insurance shortages 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 zalma@zalma.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 insurers and their claims staff to become insured.

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 [19659005] 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/(1965 go to insurance claims library -https: //zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/

https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkV7pkuOtkiv6oakpgK33CNlNAYW-WBlLCOZFtgvpSdcL7R-tsWKfMVqG6fEuvmM7Hh7gUEJ7yKOdgHDbGl_cGAU%3D [19659017] [19659018] like this: [19659019] Like [19659020] Loading …


Source link