In Prunty, filed May 13, 2025, the claimant on a homeowners’ policy was held to have breached his insurance contract by refusing to submit to an Examination Under Oath (EUO) before filing a lawsuit, and that the breach was not cured when Prunty, the claimant, submitted to a deposition after he filed the lawsuit. An EUO provision gives an insurer a chance to verify a claim, and thus avoid a lawsuit, by obligating an insured party to answer various questions on the claim under oath.
Prunty misrepresented to the insurer that a wood burning stove on the premises was cracked and not usable (and therefore did not pose a risk of loss). The loss upon which the claim was based, however, was directly attributed to Prunty’s subsequent use of the stove, and Prunty refused to submit to the EUO, mistakenly believing that the insurance company was stalling to avoid paying the claim.
In addition, the appeals court affirmed that the breach was material and prejudicial based on the undisputed facts of the case. The EUO provision expressly stated that the insurer was not obligated to cover a loss if the insured failed to submit to the EUO before commencing a lawsuit based on a claim.
[See, Robert Prunty v. Maple Valley Mutual Insurance Company]