The Washington Supreme Court reversed a summary judgment ruling for the insurer based upon the insured's failure to cooperate due to genuine factual issues. Staples v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2013 Wash. LEXIS 69 (Wash. Jan. 24, 2013).
The insured's van was stolen. Inside the van was a large collection of work tools. The insured submitted a claim for loss of the tools under his homeowner's policy. He told Allstate the tools were worth between $20,000 and $25,000, and that they were for his personal use, although they could be used for work.
Over the next few months, the insured failed to provide requested documentation despite several written requests from Allstate. Allstate made several attempts to schedule an Examination Under Oath (EUO) and produce documents, but the EUO was never conducted and documents were not produced. Finally, Allstate denied the claim. Three and a half months later, the insured's attorney wrote Allstate, stating his client would appear for the EUO if Allstate would agree to extend the contractual time limit for filing suit. Allstate rejected the offer.
The insured sued, but the trial court granted summary judgment to Allstate.
The Washington Supreme Court reversed. There were factual issues regarding whether the insured substantially complied with Allstate's request for an EUO. The insured did appear for two scheduled interviews, giving Allstate ample time to examine him. He also agreed to appear for the EUO if Allstate would extend the deadline for filing suit. These facts created a genuine question of material fact as to whether the insured substantially complied with his duty to cooperate.
Thanks to John S. Vishneski III of Reed Smith LLP in Chicago for providing this case. The case was part of our panel discussion on bad faith issues at the recent ABA, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee's annual seminar.
