BROADCASTS.com

b'

False Swearing & Insurance Fraud   

In common language the \\u201cfalse swearing\\u201d provision of an insurance policy  merely means that if the insured lies under oath the policy is void  whether the lie is in a proof of loss or at an examination under oath.  In Texas and Oklahoma, false swearing is explained this way: 

Where an insured knowingly and willfully overestimates the value of  property destroyed or damaged, the policy is voided and the insured\\u2019s  right to recover is defeated.  The reason for the false swearing defense can be explained because it  would be unjust to allow a claimant to misrepresent facts under oath  that might lead to a valid defense and then allow him to escape the  consequences of the falsehood simply because he had succeeded so well  that the company was unable to establish the defense.  In common language the "false swearing" provision of an insurance policy  merely relates to a lie under oath.  In Texas and Oklahoma, false swearing is explained this way: "Where an  insured knowingly and willfully overestimates the value of property  destroyed or damaged, the policy is voided and the insured\'s right to  recover is defeated."[Summit Machine Tool Manufacturing Corp. v. Great  Northern Insurance Co., 997 S.W.2d 840 (Tex. App. Dist. 3, 1999)].  

Almost every policy that insures against the risk of loss of property  requires the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss. The proof of loss  must provide complete details regarding the property insured, the origin  of the loss, and the value of the property claimed destroyed. A policy  usually also requires the insured to give the insurer access to books  and records to prove the claim. Where fraud is suspected, the insurer  may demand that the insured be examined under oath. Significant  deviations between the sworn proof of loss and the facts developed at an  examination under oath can be the basis of a defense of fraud or false  swearing. If false swearing is found to exist, it will normally  constitute a complete defense to any claim under a property insurance  policy.  The U.S. Supreme Court stated the rule, as follows:  A false answer as to any matter of fact material to the inquiry,  knowingly and willfully made, with an intent to deceive the insurer,  would be fraudulent. If it accomplished its result, it would be a fraud  effected; if failed, it would be a fraud attempted. No one can be  permitted to say, in respect to his own statements upon a material  matter, that he did not expect to be believed; their materiality, in the  eye 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.  Claflin v. Commonwealth Insurance Co., 110 U.S. 81, 3 S. Ct. 507, 28 L.  Ed. 76 (1884).  

\\xa9 2021 \\u2013 Barry Zalma