• https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/election-shows-native-american-vote-is-force-to-be-recognized-5762778?ea_src=frontpage&ea_cnt=a&ea_med=latest-news-posts-1
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/election-shows-native-american-vote-is-force-to-be-recognized-5762778?ea_src=frontpage&ea_cnt=a&ea_med=latest-news-posts-1
    WWW.THEEPOCHTIMES.COM
    Election Shows Native American Vote Is ‘Force to Be Recognized’
    In the traditionally Democrat-voting Navajo Nation, bread-and-butter issues swung more voters toward the GOP in 2024.
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 183 Просмотры
  • Remember that since 2015 to 2024 i have done everything to support president Trump without him asking me or calling me to help him for one day and now is important that president Trump will personally recognize my doings before I will give him another doings and i don’t think that Americans will blame me because Republicans is now majority’s in senate and congress and no law will forbidden Trump this time for reaching out to me
    Remember that since 2015 to 2024 i have done everything to support president Trump without him asking me or calling me to help him for one day and now is important that president Trump will personally recognize my doings before I will give him another doings and i don’t think that Americans will blame me because Republicans is now majority’s in senate and congress and no law will forbidden Trump this time for reaching out to me
    0 Комментарии 1 Поделились 628 Просмотры

  • EUO is a Material Condition Precedent

    Claim Properly Denied for Refusal to Testify at EUO

    Post 4936

    Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/euo-material-condition-precedent-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-exccc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.

    See the full video at and at

    Erin Hughes appealed from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers) on her causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith arising after Farmers’ denial of Hughes’s property insurance claim because she refused to testify at a second examination under oath (EUO).

    In Erin Hughes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B331168, California Court of Appeals (November 8, 2024) the condition precedent was enforced.

    FACTUAL BACKGROUND

    Hughes is the owner of real property in Malibu (the property). In December 2020, Hughes obtained an insurance policy to cover the property for fire loss through the California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan). Also in December 2020, Hughes obtained a homeowner’s insurance policy from Farmers to cover perils other than fire, including losses due to theft (the policy).

    One month later, in January 2021, the property sustained significant fire damage. Hughes contacted Farmers, which advised her that fire loss was not covered by her Farmers policy, and she would have to pursue any such claim through her FAIR Plan policy. Unhappy, on January 21, 2021, Hughes tendered a theft claim under the Farmers policy, asserting in excess of $2 million worth of personal property was stolen from the property.

    Farmers ultimately denied the claim on January 5, 2022, on the ground that Hughes failed to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation, including by failing to participate in a second examination under oath as required by the policy.
    Hughes’s Complaint Against Farmers

    One week after the denial of her claim, Hughes sued Farmers and alleged Farmers demanded “duplicative, onerous and/or unnecessary” documentation of stolen items. Further, she alleged Farmers subjected her to “two confrontational, accusatory and grueling examinations under oath.” Hughes alleged her second examination under oath had been “suspended due to [her] medical condition,” but Farmers disregarded her condition and demanded a third examination.

    Farmers’ Motion for Summary Judgment

    Farmers moved for summary judgment contending it properly denied Hughes’s theft claim based on her failure to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation of her claim as well as her material misrepresentations in obtaining the Farmers policy.

    In May 2021, as part of Farmers’ theft claim investigation, Hughes participated in an examination under oath. During the examination, Hughes’s counsel informed the Farmers attorney he had just sent more than 40 additional receipts that the attorney would be receiving shortly. Recognizing they would not have time to go through the new items that day and the examination would need to continue on a future date, the Farmers attorney proposed “continu[ing] to work with one another to identify what’s missing.” In response, Hughes and her counsel agreed, with Hughes stating she would be happy to get “every single thing that you need and I’ll send it to my attorney right away.”

    In October 2021, a second session of the examination under oath was held regarding documentation Hughes had produced during and after the first session. Hughes appeared remotely with counsel and before any questions were asked of her, she objected to a further examination.

    Hughes accused the Farmers attorney of interrogating her “like a fucking criminal” and stated, “if you want to take my deposition . . . you are going to take a second deposition in court, and that’s going to be a formal deposition.” Hughes’s remote connection then cut out, and her counsel indicated she would not proceed with the examination.

    Farmers informed Hughes that it was denying coverage based on her failure to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation and particularly her refusal to proceed with the second examination under oath.
    Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment and Denial of Hughes’s Continuance Request and Motion for New Trial

    The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Farmers. Noting an insurer has “an absolute right” to require the insured to submit to an examination under oath “as long as the insurer exercises the right reasonably,” the court determined Hughes had not shown Farmers acted unreasonably. The court concluded summary judgment was appropriate “based solely on failure to cooperate.”

    DISCUSSION

    The trial court properly concluded there was no genuine dispute that Hughes’s failure to participate in an examination under oath constituted a material breach of the policy; accordingly, Farmers was excused from having to pay on Hughes’s claim. The right to require the insured to submit to an examination under oath concerning all proper subjects of inquiry is reasonable as a matter of law.

    An insured’s compliance with a policy requirement to submit to an examination under oath is a prerequisite to the right to receive benefits under the policy.
    Because Hughes refused to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation by participating in and completing her examination under oath, she cannot establish her own performance under the policy.
    Breach of Implied Covenant Claim

    The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is based on general contract law and the long-standing rule that neither party will do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement. Hughes’s claim for bad faith fails as a matter of law.

    ZALMA OPINION

    Wildfires tend to destroy everything. That is why insurers are unwilling to write fire insurance in Malibu and other areas prone to wildfires and obtain fire insurance from the Fair Plan, an organization designed to cover uninsurable risks. Because of the destruction done by a wildfire or a dwelling fire a $2 million dollar theft loss after a fire is questionable and a good reason to take a thorough EUO. Farmers tried to do so and Hughes refused without reason after admitting she left open much investigation elements at the agreed conclusion of the first session and an agreement to a second only to refuse.

    (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

    Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

    Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

    Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
    EUO is a Material Condition Precedent Claim Properly Denied for Refusal to Testify at EUO Post 4936 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/euo-material-condition-precedent-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-exccc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. See the full video at and at Erin Hughes appealed from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers) on her causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith arising after Farmers’ denial of Hughes’s property insurance claim because she refused to testify at a second examination under oath (EUO). In Erin Hughes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B331168, California Court of Appeals (November 8, 2024) the condition precedent was enforced. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Hughes is the owner of real property in Malibu (the property). In December 2020, Hughes obtained an insurance policy to cover the property for fire loss through the California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan). Also in December 2020, Hughes obtained a homeowner’s insurance policy from Farmers to cover perils other than fire, including losses due to theft (the policy). One month later, in January 2021, the property sustained significant fire damage. Hughes contacted Farmers, which advised her that fire loss was not covered by her Farmers policy, and she would have to pursue any such claim through her FAIR Plan policy. Unhappy, on January 21, 2021, Hughes tendered a theft claim under the Farmers policy, asserting in excess of $2 million worth of personal property was stolen from the property. Farmers ultimately denied the claim on January 5, 2022, on the ground that Hughes failed to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation, including by failing to participate in a second examination under oath as required by the policy. Hughes’s Complaint Against Farmers One week after the denial of her claim, Hughes sued Farmers and alleged Farmers demanded “duplicative, onerous and/or unnecessary” documentation of stolen items. Further, she alleged Farmers subjected her to “two confrontational, accusatory and grueling examinations under oath.” Hughes alleged her second examination under oath had been “suspended due to [her] medical condition,” but Farmers disregarded her condition and demanded a third examination. Farmers’ Motion for Summary Judgment Farmers moved for summary judgment contending it properly denied Hughes’s theft claim based on her failure to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation of her claim as well as her material misrepresentations in obtaining the Farmers policy. In May 2021, as part of Farmers’ theft claim investigation, Hughes participated in an examination under oath. During the examination, Hughes’s counsel informed the Farmers attorney he had just sent more than 40 additional receipts that the attorney would be receiving shortly. Recognizing they would not have time to go through the new items that day and the examination would need to continue on a future date, the Farmers attorney proposed “continu[ing] to work with one another to identify what’s missing.” In response, Hughes and her counsel agreed, with Hughes stating she would be happy to get “every single thing that you need and I’ll send it to my attorney right away.” In October 2021, a second session of the examination under oath was held regarding documentation Hughes had produced during and after the first session. Hughes appeared remotely with counsel and before any questions were asked of her, she objected to a further examination. Hughes accused the Farmers attorney of interrogating her “like a fucking criminal” and stated, “if you want to take my deposition . . . you are going to take a second deposition in court, and that’s going to be a formal deposition.” Hughes’s remote connection then cut out, and her counsel indicated she would not proceed with the examination. Farmers informed Hughes that it was denying coverage based on her failure to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation and particularly her refusal to proceed with the second examination under oath. Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment and Denial of Hughes’s Continuance Request and Motion for New Trial The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Farmers. Noting an insurer has “an absolute right” to require the insured to submit to an examination under oath “as long as the insurer exercises the right reasonably,” the court determined Hughes had not shown Farmers acted unreasonably. The court concluded summary judgment was appropriate “based solely on failure to cooperate.” DISCUSSION The trial court properly concluded there was no genuine dispute that Hughes’s failure to participate in an examination under oath constituted a material breach of the policy; accordingly, Farmers was excused from having to pay on Hughes’s claim. The right to require the insured to submit to an examination under oath concerning all proper subjects of inquiry is reasonable as a matter of law. An insured’s compliance with a policy requirement to submit to an examination under oath is a prerequisite to the right to receive benefits under the policy. Because Hughes refused to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation by participating in and completing her examination under oath, she cannot establish her own performance under the policy. Breach of Implied Covenant Claim The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is based on general contract law and the long-standing rule that neither party will do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement. Hughes’s claim for bad faith fails as a matter of law. ZALMA OPINION Wildfires tend to destroy everything. That is why insurers are unwilling to write fire insurance in Malibu and other areas prone to wildfires and obtain fire insurance from the Fair Plan, an organization designed to cover uninsurable risks. Because of the destruction done by a wildfire or a dwelling fire a $2 million dollar theft loss after a fire is questionable and a good reason to take a thorough EUO. Farmers tried to do so and Hughes refused without reason after admitting she left open much investigation elements at the agreed conclusion of the first session and an agreement to a second only to refuse. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
    WWW.LINKEDIN.COM
    Discover thousands of collaborative articles on 2500+ skills
    Discover 100 collaborative articles on domains such as Marketing, Public Administration, and Healthcare. Our expertly curated collection combines AI-generated content with insights and advice from industry experts, providing you with unique perspectives and up-to-date information on many skills and their applications.
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 1Кб Просмотры
  • Bird on a Wire
    Mel Gibson and Goldie Hawn team up in this non-stop action-comedy directed by John Badham. Hiding under the FBI Witness Protection Program, Rick Jarmin (Gibson) get nervous when old fame Marianne Graves (Hawn) recognizes him. But before he can assume a new identity, the man he put in jail (David Carradine) is released and comes to pay his respects. Rick and Marianne find themselves thrown together on an exhilarating cross-county scramble, barely evading the gangsters, police and an amorous veterinarian (Joan Severance). Their whirlwind travels eventually lead to an unforgettable climax in an elaborate zoo exhibit. A rollercoaster of a movie which will keep you on the edge elaborate zoo exhibit of your seat.
    Bird on a Wire Mel Gibson and Goldie Hawn team up in this non-stop action-comedy directed by John Badham. Hiding under the FBI Witness Protection Program, Rick Jarmin (Gibson) get nervous when old fame Marianne Graves (Hawn) recognizes him. But before he can assume a new identity, the man he put in jail (David Carradine) is released and comes to pay his respects. Rick and Marianne find themselves thrown together on an exhilarating cross-county scramble, barely evading the gangsters, police and an amorous veterinarian (Joan Severance). Their whirlwind travels eventually lead to an unforgettable climax in an elaborate zoo exhibit. A rollercoaster of a movie which will keep you on the edge elaborate zoo exhibit of your seat.
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 640 Просмотры
  • Premier space agency, keeps the Earth connected to the stars. Recognizing the 50 top tech leaders transforming their companies for a new era of AI. Forbes to discuss some of the challenges of managing IT for the space agency, designed 30 years ago never could anticipate the environment that we're in today.
    Premier space agency, keeps the Earth connected to the stars. Recognizing the 50 top tech leaders transforming their companies for a new era of AI. Forbes to discuss some of the challenges of managing IT for the space agency, designed 30 years ago never could anticipate the environment that we're in today.
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 384 Просмотры
  • November 13, 2024

    Greetings, everyone! What a difference a week makes, huh? The delusional meltdown that we are witnessing from the progressive socialist leftists is disturbing yet entertaining. Now, perhaps some of you recognize the title of this missive from a 90s dance song by C+C Music Factory.
    https://theacru.org/2024/11/13/things-that-make-you-go-hmm/
    November 13, 2024 Greetings, everyone! What a difference a week makes, huh? The delusional meltdown that we are witnessing from the progressive socialist leftists is disturbing yet entertaining. Now, perhaps some of you recognize the title of this missive from a 90s dance song by C+C Music Factory. https://theacru.org/2024/11/13/things-that-make-you-go-hmm/
    THEACRU.ORG
    Things That Make You Go Hmm...
    Let's be happy about the results of the 2024 election, but let's never take our eye off the ball again, especially when it comes to election integrity.
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 481 Просмотры
  • Debbie Hicks
    Explosive Day One: Trump and Kennedy Executive Orders Shatter the Status Quo and Redefine America’s Health, Freedom, and Government!

    BREAKING: Trump and Kennedy unleash a storm of executive orders on day one! Vaccine mandates obliterated, FDA and CDC abolished, bans on toxic ingredients, GMOs, and formal recognition of vaccine injury. A new era of health and freedom rocks America!

    BOOM: Vaccine Mandates Annihilated! Vaccine mandates are gone! Trump and Kennedy obliterate the mandates with one powerful order, putting an end to years of control by Big Pharma. Medical freedom is back! Americans reclaim the right to choose—no more forced compliance. Personal liberty is non-negotiable!

    POW! 1986 Vaccine Immunity Law: HISTORY! No more hiding for Big Pharma! Trump and Kennedy have repealed the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act, tearing down the wall of immunity Big Pharma hid behind. Justice is back as citizens regain the right to hold these giants accountable.

    BANG! Ban on Fluoridation Takes the Nation by Storm! No more fluoride in tap water! Trump and Kennedy’s ban on water fluoridation ends the era of mass medication without consent. Let America drink pure and free! Expect a massive shift toward natural, clean water nationwide.

    BOOM! FDA, CDC, and FTC Reshuffled—No, Demolished! Trump and Kennedy don’t just reform—they obliterate the FDA, CDC, and FTC, dismantling bureaucracy. This is bureaucracy zero! New, accountable agencies will report to the people and protect health without corporate strings.

    CRACK! Toxic Ingredients Banned in Food—A Health Revolution! Say goodbye to harmful additives! Artificial dyes, preservatives, and toxins are out of American food. This isn’t a tweak; it’s a food revolution led by Trump and Kennedy to safeguard health.

    THUNDER! Vaccine Injury and Death Officially Recognized Trump and Kennedy blast through silence, finally acknowledging vaccine injuries and deaths. No more denials or gaslighting. Victims will be heard. Compensation fast-tracked, ensuring justice for those impacted.

    EXPLOSIVE! GMOs and Toxic Pesticides Banned—America Turns Organic! Trump and Kennedy’s ban on GMOs and pesticides sends a thunderous message: America goes organic. Health is prioritized over profit, and the agricultural sector is forever transformed!

    FINAL STRIKE: Recognition of Autism-Vaccine Link—A Truth Bomb Trump and Kennedy boldly address the autism-vaccine link, challenging the medical status quo. Independent studies will surge, and programs for affected families will expand, proving this administration champions truth and transparency.

    THE GRAND FINALE: Abolishing FDA, CDC, FTC—The End of an Era! This is it: the final blistering strike that shatters the status quo. Trump and Kennedy tear down bureaucratic giants, transferring power to the people.

    America, brace yourself—change is here!
    Debbie Hicks Explosive Day One: Trump and Kennedy Executive Orders Shatter the Status Quo and Redefine America’s Health, Freedom, and Government! BREAKING: Trump and Kennedy unleash a storm of executive orders on day one! Vaccine mandates obliterated, FDA and CDC abolished, bans on toxic ingredients, GMOs, and formal recognition of vaccine injury. A new era of health and freedom rocks America! BOOM: Vaccine Mandates Annihilated! Vaccine mandates are gone! Trump and Kennedy obliterate the mandates with one powerful order, putting an end to years of control by Big Pharma. Medical freedom is back! Americans reclaim the right to choose—no more forced compliance. Personal liberty is non-negotiable! POW! 1986 Vaccine Immunity Law: HISTORY! No more hiding for Big Pharma! Trump and Kennedy have repealed the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act, tearing down the wall of immunity Big Pharma hid behind. Justice is back as citizens regain the right to hold these giants accountable. BANG! Ban on Fluoridation Takes the Nation by Storm! No more fluoride in tap water! Trump and Kennedy’s ban on water fluoridation ends the era of mass medication without consent. Let America drink pure and free! Expect a massive shift toward natural, clean water nationwide. BOOM! FDA, CDC, and FTC Reshuffled—No, Demolished! Trump and Kennedy don’t just reform—they obliterate the FDA, CDC, and FTC, dismantling bureaucracy. This is bureaucracy zero! New, accountable agencies will report to the people and protect health without corporate strings. CRACK! Toxic Ingredients Banned in Food—A Health Revolution! Say goodbye to harmful additives! Artificial dyes, preservatives, and toxins are out of American food. This isn’t a tweak; it’s a food revolution led by Trump and Kennedy to safeguard health. THUNDER! Vaccine Injury and Death Officially Recognized Trump and Kennedy blast through silence, finally acknowledging vaccine injuries and deaths. No more denials or gaslighting. Victims will be heard. Compensation fast-tracked, ensuring justice for those impacted. EXPLOSIVE! GMOs and Toxic Pesticides Banned—America Turns Organic! Trump and Kennedy’s ban on GMOs and pesticides sends a thunderous message: America goes organic. Health is prioritized over profit, and the agricultural sector is forever transformed! FINAL STRIKE: Recognition of Autism-Vaccine Link—A Truth Bomb Trump and Kennedy boldly address the autism-vaccine link, challenging the medical status quo. Independent studies will surge, and programs for affected families will expand, proving this administration champions truth and transparency. THE GRAND FINALE: Abolishing FDA, CDC, FTC—The End of an Era! This is it: the final blistering strike that shatters the status quo. Trump and Kennedy tear down bureaucratic giants, transferring power to the people. America, brace yourself—change is here!
    Like
    1
    0 Комментарии 1 Поделились 2Кб Просмотры
  • Declaring a Policy Void
    When a Policy Is Void
    For Subscribers to Excellence in Claims Handling
    You can Subscribe for only $5 a month to Excellence in Claims Handling at
    https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
    A small portion of what was provided to subscribers.
    In almost every policy of insurance, there is a clause declaring the policy void if the insured misrepresents or conceals material facts or commits fraud. For example:
    We do not pay for bodily injury or property damage which is expected by, directed by, or intended by an insured. This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury that arises out of the use of reasonable force to protect people or property. (AAIS Form BP-200, (c) 1987 AAIS).
    or:
    This Coverage Form is void in any case of fraud by you at any time as it relates to this Coverage Form. It is also void if you or any other “insured,” at any time, intentionally conceal or misrepresent a material fact concerning: a. This Coverage Form; b. The covered “auto”; c. Your interest in the covered “auto”; or d. A claim under this Coverage Form. (Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 01 87).
    The policy wording requires that the insurer prove, not only that the insured misrepresented or concealed a material fact but must also prove that the insured did so with the intent to deceive.
    Absent the rare confession it is often difficult to prove intentional deceit. The insured will usually claim that he or she was mistaken and had no intent to deceive. In more than 50 years of investigation of fraudulent insurance claims I only once received from an insured an under oath statement that the insured intentionally deceived the insurer and then, not in person, but by correcting false testimony in the transcript of an examination under oath.
    If fraud or mutual mistake is an issue, insurers and insureds doing business in Oklahoma must resort to courts of general jurisdiction for a determination of contractual rights.[1] In Oklahoma, the Workers’ Compensation court does not have the right to rescind or declare a policy of Workers’ Compensation insurance void. However, where there is a misrepresentation with intent to deceive and the putative insured recognized the materiality of the misrepresentation the insurance policy is void from its inception.[2]
    In Florida, Florida Statutes (2006), state in pertinent part:
    any insurance fraud shall void all coverage arising from the claim related to such fraud under the personal injury protection coverage of the insured person who committed the fraud.
    In harmony with this statutory provision, the fraud provision in an insurance policy set forth: “any insurance fraud shall void all personal injury protection coverage arising from the claim with respect to the insured who committed the fraud” is appropriate and enforceable. [Bosem v. Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co., 35 So.3d 944 (Fla. App., 2010)]

    Declaring a Policy Void When a Policy Is Void For Subscribers to Excellence in Claims Handling You can Subscribe for only $5 a month to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe A small portion of what was provided to subscribers. In almost every policy of insurance, there is a clause declaring the policy void if the insured misrepresents or conceals material facts or commits fraud. For example: We do not pay for bodily injury or property damage which is expected by, directed by, or intended by an insured. This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury that arises out of the use of reasonable force to protect people or property. (AAIS Form BP-200, (c) 1987 AAIS). or: This Coverage Form is void in any case of fraud by you at any time as it relates to this Coverage Form. It is also void if you or any other “insured,” at any time, intentionally conceal or misrepresent a material fact concerning: a. This Coverage Form; b. The covered “auto”; c. Your interest in the covered “auto”; or d. A claim under this Coverage Form. (Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 01 87). The policy wording requires that the insurer prove, not only that the insured misrepresented or concealed a material fact but must also prove that the insured did so with the intent to deceive. Absent the rare confession it is often difficult to prove intentional deceit. The insured will usually claim that he or she was mistaken and had no intent to deceive. In more than 50 years of investigation of fraudulent insurance claims I only once received from an insured an under oath statement that the insured intentionally deceived the insurer and then, not in person, but by correcting false testimony in the transcript of an examination under oath. If fraud or mutual mistake is an issue, insurers and insureds doing business in Oklahoma must resort to courts of general jurisdiction for a determination of contractual rights.[1] In Oklahoma, the Workers’ Compensation court does not have the right to rescind or declare a policy of Workers’ Compensation insurance void. However, where there is a misrepresentation with intent to deceive and the putative insured recognized the materiality of the misrepresentation the insurance policy is void from its inception.[2] In Florida, Florida Statutes (2006), state in pertinent part: any insurance fraud shall void all coverage arising from the claim related to such fraud under the personal injury protection coverage of the insured person who committed the fraud. In harmony with this statutory provision, the fraud provision in an insurance policy set forth: “any insurance fraud shall void all personal injury protection coverage arising from the claim with respect to the insured who committed the fraud” is appropriate and enforceable. [Bosem v. Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co., 35 So.3d 944 (Fla. App., 2010)]
    BARRYZALMA.SUBSTACK.COM
    Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling
    A series of writings and/or videos to help understand insurance, insurance claims, and becoming an insurance claims professional and who need to provide or receive competent and Excellence in Claims Handling. Click to read Excellence in Claims Handling, by Barry Zalma, a Substack publication with thousands of subscribers.
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 1Кб Просмотры
  • The “Tectonic Shift” You Can’t Ignore: Buckle Up and Prepare for a World You Soon Won’t Recognize

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHsARFecvQ0&list=TLPQMzExMDIwMjTdvVD2z-HB4Q&index=4
    The “Tectonic Shift” You Can’t Ignore: Buckle Up and Prepare for a World You Soon Won’t Recognize https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHsARFecvQ0&list=TLPQMzExMDIwMjTdvVD2z-HB4Q&index=4
    Like
    1
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 169 Просмотры
  • The “Tectonic Shift” You Can’t Ignore: Buckle Up and Prepare for a World You Soon Won’t Recognize

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHsARFecvQ0&list=TLPQMzExMDIwMjTdvVD2z-HB4Q&index=4
    The “Tectonic Shift” You Can’t Ignore: Buckle Up and Prepare for a World You Soon Won’t Recognize https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHsARFecvQ0&list=TLPQMzExMDIwMjTdvVD2z-HB4Q&index=4
    Like
    Sad
    2
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 167 Просмотры
Расширенные страницы
Спонсоры

We are 100% funded for October.

Thanks to everyone who helped out. 🥰

Xephula monthly operating expenses for 2024 - Server: $143/month - Backup Software: $6/month - Object Storage: $6/month - SMTP Service: $10/month - Stripe Processing Fees: ~$10/month - Total: $175/month

Xephula Funding Meter

Please Donate Here