Strategies, Challenges, and Answers

Archives for March 2013

Examinations Under Oath Meant To Prevent Unnecessary Litigation

In addition to detecting FRAUD, examinations under oath serve a number of other purposes.  For example in the case of Yeo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 219 Mich. App. 254, 258, 555 N.W.2d 893, 895 (1996) the court explained that an examination allowed an insurance company to gather facts it would need to determine whether it would adjust the claim or defend a denial.  In other words, examinations under oath also help prevent unnecessary litigation. In the case of Dietz v. Hardware Dealers Mut. Fire … [Read more...]

Can Anyone Find A Reported Nevada Case That Deals With Examinations Under Oath?

An insured’s obligation to give an Examinations Under Oath in conjunction with an insurance claim has been around a long time.  Take for example the case of Claflin v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 110 U.S. 81, 3 S. Ct. 507, 28 L. Ed. 76 (1884).  There, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that the purpose behind an Examination Under Oath was "to enable the [insurance] company to possess itself of all knowledge and all information as to other sources and means of knowledge, in regard to the facts, material … [Read more...]

Congratulations to our own Carrie McCrea Hanlon, Esq. for her decisive victory on behalf of client Alaska Airlines.

Carrie McCrea Hanlon of Mills & Associates won a defense verdict in favor of defendant Alaska Airlines in the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada case of Ginena v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 2:04-CV-01304-MMD-CWH.  The Las Vegas Review Journal reports on Carrie’s success HERE.  Alaska Airlines is a small but fast growing airline and is proud that this case will establish an important precedent that will benefit carriers nationwide.  (Click HERE for a recent New York Times article … [Read more...]

The Nevada Supreme Court Reconciles Conflicts Between Nevada’s UM/UIM Law And An “Owned But Uninsured” Exclusion

In an earlier post HERE, we explained how the Nevada Supreme Court reconciled the conflict it found between Nevada’s Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Law, NRS 485.185, and an auto policy’s household exclusion.  A few years later, the Nevada Supreme Court encountered the same type of conflict in a Uninsured / Underinsured Motorist setting. Like liability coverage, Nevada UM/UIM coverage has a compulsory element as well.  As we explained in an earlier POST, Nevada auto insurance … [Read more...]