Advertisement

May 21, 2013

In Absence of Express Policy Requirement, No Examination Under Oath - EUO Pre-Requisite to Insured Filing Bad Faith Suit

Williams Kastner
Dana Ferestien
Williams Kastner
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Civil Procedure / Insurance Reinsurance & Surety / Litigation / Trial Practice
Washington
Printer-friendly
Email this Article
Download PDF
Reprints & Permissions

Washington courts enforce provisions requiring insureds to sit for examinations under oath and have dismissed bad faith lawsuits where the policy at issue contains provisions requiring an EUO and an insured's compliance with all policy terms before they may file suit. But what happens when a policy does not contain an EUO provision and an insured files suit after refusing an insurer's request for an EUO.

The Ninth Circuit addressed this issue last week in Parker v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6464 (March 12, 2012). Reversing Judge Benjamin Settle's summary judgment dismissal in favor of Allstate, the 9th Circuit found "no requirement under Washington law that an insured complete an EUO before suing her insurer when the insuring contract includes no EUO requirement." Under this ruling, insurers in Washington seem to have EUO rights only where they expressly provide for it in their policy.

© 2002-2013 by Williams Kastner ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

About the Author

Dana Ferestien

Dana Ferestien is a member in the Seattle office and a part of the firm’s business litigation practice group and insurance team.

dferestien@williamskastner.com
206-233-2892
www.williamkastner.com

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.