 |
 Insurance Issues in Arson InvestigationsIn addition to the obvious areas of investigation in an arson case, the insurance investigator must consider a number of related issues unique to the insurance side of the case. The adjuster or SIU representative should consider, and must be prepared to respond to, the following issues: Application Fraud The issue of application fraud should always be considered in an arson investigation. Experience has shown that arson-for-profit schemes often begin with fraudulent procurement of the policy. To investigate this fully, both the producing agent and the underwriter should be interviewed. All of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the policy should be discussed with them. The application form and all related documents should be reviewed. Records of any contacts or communications with the insured during the application process and afterward – up through the time of the loss – should be documented. There are a number of things to look for:
Multiple Choice Question 1. Application fraud is one of the first issues to consider when beginning an arson investigation because:
Multiple Choice Question 2. The description of the property at time of application should include the price paid and actual market value of the risk because:
Multiple Choice Question 3. One of the more important issues one should investigate when arson is suspected is the property’s insurance and financial history. Select from the following the single most relevant finding that would be important to an arson investigation:
Developing an Application Fraud Defense There may be certain requirements for establishing fraud in the application under state law in the particular jurisdiction. Some states require that the application must be signed and others require that it be physically attached to the policy when issued. The investigator must be sure that there has been compliance with all such statutes and provisions of the applicable insurance code. When a valid application defense is established, certain steps must be taken with care. First, an insurer may not enforce policy terms and conditions under a policy it is simultaneously claiming as void ab initio, (i.e., you can’t have it both ways!) This can create a waiver issue if it is not properly handled. For instance, if you try to enforce certain conditions in the policy, you may inadvertently “waive” your defense that the policy is invalid. In most cases, the issue of application fraud may only be finally established after the insured is questioned about it at the Examination Under Oath. The investigation may need to go forward until that time, despite indications of application fraud. However, it may be appropriate to issue a reservation of rights on the issue to avoid any potential waiver problems. In addition, when such a defense is asserted, most jurisdictions require a full refund of the premium payment (including any premium finance charges) and a statement of the specific grounds for declaring the policy void ab initio. Almost all jurisdictions require that the information which has been misstated or omitted be “material” to the decision to accept the risk, to charge the premium rate assessed for the coverage, or to provide the type coverage which was issued under that policy, such that the decision would have been different had the true facts been known. Importantly, many states do not require proof of fraudulent intent on the part of the applicant. In those jurisdictions, it need only be shown that the information would have affected the decision to provide coverage in one of the ways referenced above (i.e., material misrepresentation, etc.), even if it was the result of an inadvertent omission or misstatement by the applicant. In those jurisdictions, the ability to assert and prove the application defense is significantly enhanced. Reservation of Rights The reservation of rights letter is commonly used in insurance claims handling. Many jurisdictions require a reservation of rights to preserve potential defenses to coverage. When it appears that there is a potential coverage defense to the claim, it is wise to send a Reservation or Rights letter stating the specific concern about coverage. This does not mean, however, that the insurance company must reveal the results of its investigation while it is still ongoing. The writing of such a letter clearly indicating the specific concerns without giving away sensitive information during an investigation is a skill obtained through years of practice. A young claims handler should seek guidance from an experienced professional, and in the event of complex issues or litigation, even an experienced claims professional should seek the input of a second set of eyes, or even defense counsel. To Reserve or Not Reserve Rights…That is the Question! The reason for issuing a Reservation of Rights letter is to preserve policy defenses. A decision to issue such a letter should be considered under applicable state law, and one may benefit from the assistance of legal counsel. For there to be a waiver of coverage defense, the insured usually must prove a lack of knowledge of the coverage issue resulting in detrimental reliance by the insured, such as commencing the repair or reconstruction of the property. For instance, any time the insured is taking steps to repair or rebuild the property or to incur expense in anticipation of the claim being paid, a Reservation or Rights letter should be considered to advise the insured of the issue. A Reservation of Rights “statement” should also be included in all correspondence to the insured during the pendency of a claim investigation when arson or fraud is suspected. A statement to the effect that “the claim remains under investigation and no decision has been made as to coverage or liability for the damages claimed” will be considered appropriate to prevent any detrimental reliance in most jurisdictions. It is a preferred practice to include such language in all correspondence to the insured while the claim remains under investigation in cases of arson or fraud. Multiple Choice Question 4. One of the most important things to remember if you are going to try to show application fraud is to:
Multiple Choice Question 5. The reason for issuing a Reservation of Rights letter is:
True/False Question 6. A Reservation of Rights is recommended for any claim during the pendency of any investigation in which arson or fraud is suspected.
Non-Waiver Agreements A non-waiver agreement is another commonly used device in claim investigations. It is another way of ensuring there is no waiver of any potential coverage defenses or the requirement for compliance with all duties after loss. Though a non-waiver agreement is frequently used in claim investigations, it has its limitations. Many jurisdictions have state laws, insurance codes provisions and case law already preserving the insurer’s rights while conducting a claim investigation. Moreover, the non-waiver “agreement” has been challenged in several jurisdictions as being merely a unilateral preservation of the insurance company’s rights. The statement in such agreements that all of the rights of the insured will be protected has been said to be a meaningless promise since the insured’s rights could not realistically be “waived” during a claim investigation. The validity of a non-waiver agreement may be open to challenge and may be unnecessary in any event, since an appropriate Reservation or Rights letter or routine correspondence with the insured containing a Reservation of Rights statement, while reminding him of the duties after loss and the expectation that all policy duties will be complied with, may be legally sufficient.
Cancellation/ Non-Renewal The cancellation or non-renewal of a policy unrelated to a claim investigation will not be discussed here. Instead, consideration will be given to the situation where a cancellation or non-renewal arises during the pendency of a claim investigation. Such action should be carefully taken under those circumstances in order to avoid unanticipated consequences. The cancellation or non-renewal of a policy while an application fraud issue is under investigation may waive such defense. After all, how can you cancel or non-renew something that never existed? Canceling or non-renewing a policy implies the insurer is terminating coverage which has already been in effect. Another complication may arise when cancellation is being considered after a loss has occurred, for reasons which precede the loss – such as non-payment of premium. Although the premium payment may never have been made before a loss occurs, the particular jurisdiction may determine whether it will serve as the basis for canceling the policy retroactive to before the loss. While the potential for such a cancellation exists, the acceptance of a premium payment after the loss may also waive the defense. For this and many other reasons, close communication with the underwriters and agents is advisable whenever coverage issues are being considered. The producing agent and the premium processing department of the company must be advised not to accept any premium payments from the insured. Most jurisdictions have specific statutes and regulations under the insurance code for the method and basis of canceling or non-renewing a policy. Before any such action is taken during the pendency a claim investigation, compliance with all applicable statutes and insurance code regulations must be ensured and legal advice from in-house counsel or outside counsel should be sought before taking such action. Loss Payment The investigation of a suspected arson claim may in fact turn out to be a lengthy process. Frequently, it cannot be completed before the claim is deemed payable under the terms of the policy, usually thirty or sixty days after submission of the Sworn Proof of Loss and compliance with the other duties after loss. The failure to timely act upon a claim may be considered an Unfair Claim Practice in many jurisdictions, subjecting the insurer to potential bad faith claims. This can create a very difficult situation for the claim handler or SIU representative conducting the investigation. Depending upon the reason for the inability to complete the investigation, the insurer may have several alternative courses of action. Where the delay is caused by the insured in failing to substantiate the claim, appear for Examination Under Oath, or produce records related to the investigation, the claim will not be considered due and payable in most jurisdictions. However, these facts must be well documented in correspondence to the insured informing him of the conditions which have not been met and reiterating the demand of compliance with the terms of the policy before the claim will be considered payable. Where the delay is caused by factors outside the control of the insured, the situation is problematic. In most situations, the claim is considered due and payable 30 or 60 days (depending upon the language of the policy) after the insured has complied with all of the duties and conditions under the policy. The fact that the insurer has simply been “unable” to complete an investigation of the claim for reasons of its own-or for any reason other than something the insured has done or failed to do-will not serve to avoid the responsibility for making the decision on payment or denial of the claim. Sometimes a difficult decision must be made even when it appears crucial information may soon be received potentially affecting the decision on the claim. The insurer must decide if it is willing to take the risk of delaying the decision on the claim while the investigation is completed or making the decision without the information. That choice is usually based upon the importance of the information and its bearing on the overall claim investigation. Where the insurer is awaiting the results of an investigation by the public authorities, the failure to timely act upon the claim poses significant risk. Unless there are strong indications that evidence of the insured’s involvement in the loss will result from the investigation by the public authorities, this should not be used as a basis for delaying the decision. It is not enough to simply “hope” the authorities come up with something. Multiple Choice Question 7. A Non-Waiver Agreement may not be as effective, or as legally adequate, as a Reservation of Rights letter because:
Multiple Choice Question 8. A company should take care not to cancel or non-renew a policy during the pendency of any investigation for application fraud because:
Multiple Choice Question 9. If an investigation cannot be completed because an insured has failed to substantiate the claim, appear for Examination Under Oath, or produce records related to the investigation, and the time for payment required by policy or state regulation runs out:
The Examination Under Oath The Examination Under Oath (EUO) is one of the most important parts of an insurance investigation, but it must be properly approached. Only those persons subject to the policy terms and conditions may be required to appear for Examination Under Oath. In homeowner claims, this is usually only the named insured's and definitional insured's. In commercial cases, it is usually only the officers, directors or managers of the business. Some policy forms state that the insured may be required to assist in requesting the Examination Under Oath of other parties. However, those policies only provide that the insured must “assist” or do what is in the insured’s power to compel. Timing Critical The timing of an Examination Under Oath is critical. It should be taken in the final stages of the investigation, after as much information as possible has been developed. It should immediately follow the receipt of a Sworn Proof of Loss and related claim documents, and it should be scheduled with enough time for follow-up investigation afterward while still meeting the deadline for a decision on the claim. When an Examination Under Oath is canceled or delayed by the actions of the insured, it should be rescheduled at the earliest available date. Additionally, correspondence should be sent to the insured indicating any delay in conducting the Examination Under Oath will extend (i.e., toll) the time for making a final decision on the claim during the period of delay while the Examination Under Oath is being rescheduled.
Date, Time and Location Certain The Examination Under Oath must be formally demanded by the insurance company and scheduled at a specific place on a date certain. Merely informing the insured that an Examination Under Oath is “requested” (or even demanded) without setting forth the place, date and time may not be considered a valid exercise of the right to an Examination Under Oath and may even be considered a waiver of the right. Location of the EUO The location for the Examination Under Oath should be a court reporter’s office or the office of the attorney who will be conducting it. It should be held in the same city where the loss occurred, if possible. If there is no available facility in that city (such as a rural area), it should be set in the same county where the loss occurred. There is limited case law in this area, but most of the reported decisions indicate that it must be held in the county where the loss occurred. As a general rule, it should only be held elsewhere when requested by the insured for the convenience of the insured. An insured who has left the area or moved to another state poses a problem. Under the applicable case law, the insured could probably be compelled to return for the Examination Under Oath. However, consideration must be given to the interests of the insured in making such a demand. If it is practical to do so, the insurer should consider conducting the Examination Under Oath where the insured presently resides when it would create an undue hardship for the insured to return. Of course, an insured who has moved overseas or across the country poses problems for the insurer in trying to complete the investigation of the claim. In the end, it may be a judgment call on how to proceed. Where it is an economic or practical impossibility for the insured to return to the area, the Examination Under Oath may have to be conducted elsewhere.
Production of Records One of the most important aspects of an Examination Under Oath is the production of records. The insured will be required to produce all records relating to the claim, the insured’s property, matters relating to a financial motive and other records particular to the investigation. Any records which the insured will be required to produce at the Examination Under Oath must be specified in the letter scheduling it. An adequate time must be provided for the records to be collected, particularly those which may be in the hands of third parties. Many of those records may have been already been requested of the insured early on in the investigation. The insured should not be required to produce those records again when they are already in the possession of the insurer. When requesting the records of the insured, it should be specified that the records must be produced at or before the time of the Examination Under Oath. If necessary, the Examination Under Oath may have to be delayed until the records can be obtained. Who Conducts the EUO? The Examination Under Oath should be conducted by an attorney trained in the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, i.e., a trial attorney. Even more importantly, the attorney selected to conduct the Examination Under Oath should be experienced and familiar with the handling of arson claims. Even the most skilled “insurance defense” attorney will be ineffective unless he is experienced in handling this specific type of case. There are issues unique to the handling of arson claims which may have to be confronted. A familiarity with basic fire principles is essential in order to understand the responses given about the circumstances about the fire. A knowledge of the fraud issues which are common to arson cases is also necessary to effectively question the insured. The attorney selected to conduct the Examination Under Oath should be the attorney who will conduct the trial of the case if it is litigated. An attorney who has the experience of handling hundreds of Examination Under Oath in fire cases can be an invaluable asset to the investigation.
Legal Representation for the Insured The insured is entitled to be represented by an attorney at the Examination Under Oath. However, there are strict limitations on the role of the attorney during the Examination Under Oath. The Examination Under Oath is an extra-judicial statement which is not subject to the Rules of Evidence. There can be no objections to the form of the question or the relevancy of the question. Only in cases of privilege may the attorney assert an objection to the question. However, there are a few privileges which may be asserted during the examination. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is not applicable to an Examination Under Oath. The attorney may not assert it on behalf of his client and the insured must respond to the question without regard for potential self-incrimination. If the insured asserts the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, in most jurisdictions it will be considered a breach of the policy terms and result in forfeiture of the claim. Where the insured is already under prosecution for charges arising out of the loss, the insured may be able to seek a short delay in the Examination Under Oath in order to avoid self-incrimination. There are only a few reported decisions where this has been allowed and most courts have held the insured must elect between the privilege and the insurance claim. If the insured chooses the privilege, the claim will be forfeited. Apart from the rare occasion where the insured’s attorney may appropriately assert an objection to a question, the attorney may not participate directly in the Examination Under Oath. An attorney who interjects comments, suggests answers to the insured, or becomes obstructive must be cautioned to refrain from such conduct. If the conduct persists, the insured should be cautioned that the actions of the attorney may prevent the Examination Under Oath from being properly conducted, resulting in the denial of the claim. In extreme cases, it may be necessary to adjourn the Examination Under Oath and take appropriate action.
Verification of Records All of the records which are produced by the insured during the Examination Under Oath should be reviewed and verified with the insured. Key documents should be marked as Exhibits and made part of the record. The Sworn Proof of Loss and related claim documents should similarly be reviewed and verified with the insured. Where there are suspicions about particular items on the claim, the insured should be closely questioned about those items and their legitimacy on the claim. If it is doubted that a particular item was owned by the insured or was the type claimed, the insured should be asked about the place of purchase, date of purchase, description of the item and method of payment of the item. This information will allow the item to be verified through follow-up investigation.
The insured or his attorney may feel certain questions are inappropriate to the investigation, yet it should be pointed out to the insured that an answer is required. When an insured improperly refuses to answer a question on those grounds, a statement should be made on the record indicating the failure or refusal to answer the question may be considered a violation of the policy terms and conditions resulting in the denial of the claim. Following the warning, the insured should be asked again if he is willing to answer the question. When the refusal persists, it should be noted on the record and considered as a possible basis for denial of the claim. When the insured has failed to bring certain records to the Examination Under Oath or claims they were not available in time for the statement, the particular document should be noted on the record with a statement the insured will be required to produce it as soon as it is available. Following the Examination Under Oath, correspondence should be sent to the insured reminding him of the records which are still awaiting production. How Often Can an EUO Be Taken? Most policies of insurance provide for the right of an Examination Under Oath “as often as may be reasonably required” by the insurer. At the conclusion of the Examination Under Oath, particularly where there are records which have not been produced or answers which have not been provided, it should be stated that the insurance company is reserving its right to conduct additional Examinations Under Oath of the insured. As a general rule, this right should be reserved at the end of every Examination Under Oath in the event that later information comes to the attention of the insurer which needs to be addressed with the insured.
Preserve and Review the EUO Finally, the insured should be advised a transcript of the Examination Under Oath will be prepared and provided to the insured at the expense of the insurance company. The insured should be informed that the transcript must be carefully reviewed for any errors or inaccuracies in the transcript, which should be duly noted. The insurance company must require that the insured do so and than sign the transcript after this has been done. Unlike a deposition, the insured may not elect to waive his signature. Most insurance policies specifically require the insured to sign the transcript and the failure to do so could serve as a basis for denial of the claim. Multiple Choice Question 10. An Examination Under Oath should be conducted only by:
Multiple Choice Question 11. If a fire is also being investigated for arson by the civil authorities, the handling adjuster should:
Bad Faith Bad faith claims are an all too common product of arson investigation and arson denials. Many of the highest verdicts ever awarded in bad faith cases resulted from arson claims. The contentious nature of an arson investigation and the implications of denying a claim based upon arson by the insured contribute to this situation. As a result, the insurance adjuster and/or investigator must always be mindful of the potential for creating bad faith issues. Publicizing the fact that fire has been determined to be incendiary should always be avoided. Except for public officials who are engaged in an investigation of the fire, there is no valid reason of for anyone to disclose this fact to other parties. It may become apparent that arson is an issue in the case when interviewing witnesses about any suspicious activities observed around the time of the fire, any suspicious factors about the fire itself, or their knowledge of any persons having reason to set fire to the insured’s property, but it should never be directly stated. Certainly, nothing should be said to give the impression that the insured is a prime suspect in setting the fire. If a witness asks whether the insured is being accused of setting the fire, it should be stated that the fire is under investigation and nothing has yet been determined about the responsible party. When approaching friends, relatives, and neighbors of the insured, special care should be taken in how the questions are asked.
Investigation by Public Authorities The investigation of a fire by the public authorities must always be considered a separate and distinct investigation. It should never be stated that the decision on the claim will be based upon the outcome of an investigation by the public authorities. Nothing should be said to the insured implying he may face criminal charges unless the claim is dropped or suggesting the authorities will be used to put pressure on the insured. There is no more certain way to provoke a bad faith claim than this type of conduct. Of course, it is necessary to contact the public authorities as part of the investigation and this should always be done. However, nothing should be said or done to try to influence the outcome of the investigation by the public authorities other than to report facts which have been uncovered in the investigation. Potential Defamation When a claim is denied based upon arson by the insured, great care must be taken to avoid bad faith issues arising from defamation, or libel and slander. When communicating with a mortgage or loss payee/lien holder, it should never be stated the claim of the insured has been denied based on arson. If it is necessary to inform them the claim has been denied, it should only be stated it has been denied and any questions about the specific reasons for denial should be asked of the insured. When contacted by friends, relatives, neighbors, business associates, creditors, and others who may have an interest in the outcome of the claim, it should simply be stated a decision has been communicated to the insured and they should speak with the insured for further information. Certainly, contact with the media after finial should always be avoided. A high-profile case may be the subject of media attention, but any inquiries should be declined or directed to the insured. IF the insured has already made known the basis of the denial, it should be stated that the claim is a confidential matter between the insured and the insurance company. It is far better to have the media report that the insurance company offered “no comment” than to create a claim by the insured for defamation or libel or slander.
Settlement Many times an insurance company will negotiate a token settlement with an insured after a claim has been denied based upon arson or even before the claim has been denied. An insurer should be wary of settling a claim for a nominal amount unless it has been initiated by the insured. Any such discussions should be carefully documented in writing through correspondence with the insured. The offer of a token settlement to an insured before or after denial which is based upon suspicions of accusations of arson can easily be made to appear as bad faith claims handling. It is a subject which should be approached with extreme caution, especially settlement negotiations before a decision on the claim.
Confidentiality Issues There are a number of confidentiality issues that arise in an arson investigation. Many states have statutory or even constitutional privacy rights for all citizens which can come into play in an arson investigation. Certain information such as medical records, tax returns and other financial records are strictly confidential. They must be properly obtained with legal authorization from the insured and may not be disclosed to anyone outside of the insurance investigation (or public investigation where the information is provided pursuant to the applicable Arson Immunity Reporting Act).
When conducting an investigation of the fire scene, confidential records and documents may be uncovered. Even after a fire has destroyed the premises, an insured retains a privacy right in such records. They should not be considered as discarded by the insured. Reviewing and copying confidential records, personal correspondence, diaries and other such items should be strictly avoided. While it is tempting to have a look at such records when they are found at the fire scene, the consequences can be severe. Information about the personal affairs of an insured or the operations of an insured’s business should always be kept confidential. In commercial cases, there may be “trade secret” issues related to the operations of the business. Disclosure of such information can have adverse consequences for the insured which may lead to even more extreme consequences for the insurer. Information developed though an Examination Under Oath often contains a great deal of confidential material. An Examination Under Oath should be considered a confidential proceeding by the insurance company. When information is revealed to other parties, it can constitute an actionable invasion of privacy. An insured will often ask if the information is an Examination Under Oath will be kept confidential. It should be stated that the information will be kept confidential, except as to the disclosure of the information required by Arson Immunity Reporting Act or by compulsory process such as a subpoena or grand jury proceeding. Many arson investigations result in inquiries from other law enforcement agencies on unrelated matters which may involve the insured. When such an inquiry is received or there is a request for records from the file, unless the agency is authorized to receive the information under the Immunity Act or other appropriate statutory basis, a subpoena should be requested. It may be appropriate to say the information has already been provided to other law enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation of the fire, so that the information may be sought through those agencies using appropriate means.
Overall, arson investigations should always be considered highly confidential and care should be taken to ensure the investigation remains confidential. Informants/ Confidential Sources In many arson cases, information will be received from an informant or confidential source. This poses special problems for the insurance company investigation. Such information should always be received with caution and skepticism. A rival, ex-employee, ex-spouse, or other person having a grudge against the insured may become aware of the investigation and try to falsely implicate the insured. The recommended practice is to refer such sources to the public authorities. An informant or confidential source who will not speak with the public authorities should be considered an unreliable source unless there is a valid reason they are unwilling or unable to speak with the authorities. Informants who request “rewards” or money of their information also raise special concerns. Paid information is generally considered unreliable by most courts and most juries. Unless there is corroborating evidence which can be independently established, the information may not be useable. When it is permissible to offer a reward for information in a case, it should be properly handled. A reward through a law enforcement agency is preferable or through an independent organization which administers rewards for information about arson cases. There are a number of such organizations across the country. When an insurance company directly pays money to an informant for information, is should be realized that the source may never be able to be used as a witness at trial and the payment may create serious problems for the insurance company if not properly handled.
Whether the information comes from a paid informant or a confidential source who remains anonymous, the information should always be carefully evaluated before it is considered believable or as anything which can be used in the case. Agents / Brokers It should be recognized that agents and brokers have a relationship with the insured whose claim is under investigation. In most cases, they want the claim to be paid in order to maintain a business relationship. They may also have a direct financial interest in the outcome of the claim, as it may affect their evaluation by the insurance company or may even affect their commission payments. For these reasons, the adjuster or investigator must exercise discretion in dealing with them. They already have a professional relationship with the insured and may have a personal relationship, as well. The insured is probably in frequent contact with them about the status of the claim, asking what is being done and whether the claim will be paid. Any information provided to the agent or broker may be directly conveyed to the insured. Perhaps unwittingly, the agent or broker may jeopardize the investigation by passing along information to the insured. While the agent or broker is an important source of information for the investigation, sharing the information with the agent or broker should be on a “need to know” basis. Regardless of any concerns about improperly sharing information with the insured, it may put the agent or broker in an uncomfortable position when the information about the investigation is shared with them. Rather than concealing information from a client or friend, it may be better to be able to honestly state to the insured that the agent or broker is not privy to the investigation. Denial Letter When the decision is finally made to deny a claim, it must be properly communicated to the insured. A denial based upon arson raises several concerns. Even though the denial is in the context of an insurance claim, the insured is being accused of a crime: arson. It is likely to provoke a strong reaction from the insured when the claim is denied on this basis. However, an insurance company must communicate the specific basis for the denial of a claim. It may be difficult to find a diplomatic way to say it, but it must be done. The insured should be informed the claim was thoroughly investigated and as a result of the investigation, the claim must be denied. When misrepresentation / fraud is also a basis for the denial, the specific misrepresentations should be stated. The letter should be sent to the insured (or his attorney, if represented) by certified mail/return receipt requested to confirm its receipt by the insured and the date it was received. It is very important that the denial letter should be marked “Personal and Confidential, To Be Opened by Addressee Only” and the envelope should be similarly marked. The failure to do so could result in the denial letter being inadvertently read by another person, which constitutes “publication” for purposes of a defamation or libel claim. If the denial letter is marked confidential and addressed only to the insured or his attorney, there can be no “publication” to a third-party if it is inadvertently seen or even deliberately shown to others. Now…for some more questions: Multiple Choice Question 12. Bad faith allegations against a carrier that arise as a result of arson investigations usually result from:
Multiple Choice Question 13. Why is “Confidentiality” so important in an arson investigation?
Multiple Choice Question 14. When dealing with a broker or agent during an arson investigation, it is wise for the investigating adjuster to:
Multiple Choice Question 15. To protect the carrier from a possible claim for defamation after sending the insured a denial letter based on findings of arson, it best to:
|
