Thou Shall Always Conduct A Thorough Investigation
Posted on October 31, 2022 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v1qhiq4-claims-commandment-ii.html and at
This is the second in a series of fifteen claims commandments that I believe must be followed by every insurance claims professional.
INVESTIGATION
Investigation is a search for truth. It is an art form where facts are established. It has been defined by the state of California, for example, as follows:
“Investigation” means all activities of an insurer, or its claims agent related to the determination of coverage, liabilities, or nature and extent of loss or damage for which benefits are afforded by an insurance policy, obligations or duties under a bond, and other obligations or duties arising from an insurance policy or bond. [California Code of Regulations, 10CFR2695.2(k)]
Courts will not subject an insurance company to a choice between liability under a bad-faith-failure-to-investigate theory for publication of a denial of coverage without an adequate investigation. Liability can be imposed for a constructive denial imposed after the insurer has conducted a more thorough investigation that confirms an earlier determination of no coverage, on the theory of delay coupled with a wrongful intent.
Courts, state statutes and regulations require that an insurer complete a thorough investigation before it decides the resolution of a claim for property damage, bodily injury, personal injury, or for defense and/or indemnity under a liability insurance policy. Initial conclusions based on a bare reading of a lawsuit or initial investigative interview are not enough. Rather, the insurer is required to perform a thorough investigation before deciding on a claim.
Even though an insurance company is entitled to make a thorough investigation to determine whether there is coverage under its policy of insurance, the company acts at its peril in refusing to defend its insured. If it is subsequently determined that the company erroneously denied coverage, the company will be liable for damages for breach of its agreement under the policy, but if done in good faith it will not be required to pay exemplary damages.
Insurers should conduct their thorough investigation as soon as possible. If a defense is required before the investigation can be completed, the prudent insurer will provide a defense to the insured under a reservation of rights, including a reservation to withdraw the defense and seek reimbursement for moneys expended in providing the defense under reservation.
When an insurer denies or delays payment of policy benefits due to the existence of a genuine dispute with its insured or where coverage is fairly debatable, as to the existence of coverage, the insurance company will usually find to not be liable in bad faith although it may be liable for breach of contract. One court gave the following instruction to a jury:
"In determining whether or not an insurance company had a genuine dispute as to whether or not a loss was covered, you may consider among the following: (1) Whether the insurance company was guilty of misrepresenting the nature of the investigation; (2) Whether the insurance company adjusters and investigators lied during their depositions or to the insured; (3) Whether the insurance company dishonestly selected its experts; (4) Whether the insurance company experts were unreasonable; and, (5) Whether the insurance company failed to conduct a thorough investigation.” [McCoy v. Progressive West Insurance, Co., 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 74, 171 Cal.App.4th 785 (Cal.App. Dist.2 02/04/2009)]
An insurer has a duty to conduct an appropriate and careful investigation prior to making a decision on a claim. However, if after conducting a thorough investigation of the facts and circumstances giving rise to a claim, the insurer can reasonably conclude that the claim is fairly debatable or questionable, there can be no bad faith even if it incorrectly, but in good faith, refused to pay the claim.
The same requirement of a thorough investigation applies to first party property claims like fire, lightning, windstorm and hail damage to property that is the subject of the insurance.
How to Conduct a Thorough Investigation
The investigative interview is a structured conversation between a trained and experienced interviewer and a person who has no training in the interview. It is not an interrogation. It is not the stuff of spy films, police investigations, or prisoner of war camps. Interviews happen everywhere. Interviewing is performed by almost everyone. Since interviewing is an art as well as a science, the most effective interview is one performed by someone with knowledge of the art and science of interviewing.
Investigation to gather information is partially an artistic endeavor. The art is supplemented with scientific technique obtained from criminal investigators and professional psychologists but is performed by individuals without thinking about what it is they are doing. The art of the investigation must be honed until it becomes second nature much as a skilled typist does not think where to put his or her fingers while typing.
The police science of interrogation draws heavily upon human nature and the skills of the conversationalist. The art of uncovering the truth by a claims person draws heavily from the police sciences. Because the interrogation is formal, in a confined space and conducted by a person in authority like a police officer or a lawyer examining a witness under oath in court, the techniques used are more formal and controlled than an interview as part of an insurance investigation.
Insurance investigators do not have the power of state investigators. They are compelled to get the information they need by intelligence, wit, skill and experience. They listen carefully. They put people at ease. The skill of the professional causes the person being investigated to want to give information to the investigator. The most important skill of the claims professional is to cause the person being investigated to want to give information to the claims professional that the claims professional needs. The insured who believes honest and thorough responses to the claims professional will then receive the benefits the insurance policy promised.
To conduct a thorough investigation the claims investigator should, at a minimum, the following:
Read the loss notice and policy of insurance.
If a lawsuit has been filed read the lawsuit in conjunction with the policy wording.
Interview the person insured — preferably in person.
Obtain a recorded statement from the person insured concerning the facts of the loss.
Interview and obtain a recorded statement from every independent witness.
Interview and obtain a recorded statement from the claimant if suit has not been filed.
If suit has been filed interview the attorney for the claimant about the factual basis for the suit.
View the scene of the incident.
Obtain all documents that have relevance to the claim, like:
The insured’s copy of the policy
The police or fire report, if any.
Medical records.
Financial records.
The application for insurance.
Contract(s), if any, between the insured and the claimant.
All other records that might be relevant to the claim and policy.
Consult with necessary experts like:
Investigative engineers.
Coverage counsel.
Defense counsel.
Medical professionals.
Forensic accountants.
All other experts that might be relevant to the claim and policy.
If it appears that there is coverage for the claimed loss the claims person must advise the insured of the insurer’s decision immediately. If it appears that there is no coverage the claims professional must consult with management to review the facts gathered by the thorough investigation before a decision is made.
Conclusion
No alt text provided for this image
Failure to conduct a thorough investigation is a breach of the promises made by the policy of insurance to provide defense and/or indemnity to the person insured. Failure can also result in the insurer being sued for breach of contract and the tort of bad faith.
Insurers must, to comply with current law conduct:
A detailed investigation of the facts of the loss and policy acquisition.
A determination of the expectations of the insured and the insurer at the time the policy was acquired.
A determination of the purposes for which the policy was acquired.
An examination of all communications between the insurer and the insured or their representatives.
If the investigation is not conducted, the insurer will invariably face suit for the tort of bad faith.
The thorough investigation requirement first enunciated by the California Supreme Court in Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 24 Cal. 3d 809, 620 P.2d 141, 169 Cal. Rptr. 691 (Cal. 08/14/1979) is essential when attempting to interpret a disputed policy of insurance or a disputed factual situation.
In Egan, the Supreme Court concluded that “an insurer cannot reasonably and in good faith deny payments to its insured without thoroughly investigating the foundation for its denial.”
(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at
http://www.zalma.com and [email protected] and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.
Now available Barry Zalma’s newest book, The Tort of Bad Faith, and “How to Acquire, Understand, and Make a Successful Claim on a Commercial Property Insurance Policy: Information Needed for Individuals and Insurance Pros to Deal With Commercial Property Insurance” the New Books are now available as a Kindle book here, paperback here and as a hardcover here available at amazon.com.
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at
Zalma on Insurance
By Barry Zalma
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Alleged Defamatory Statements Must be Of and Concerning Plaintiffs
Posted on October 16, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Prove Defamation the Statement Must be Of and Concerning the Plaintiffs
Post 4867
In Michael Moloney and Sergio Cantu v. United Services Automobile Association, No. 04-25-00519-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio (October 14, 2026) Michael Moloney and Sergio Cantu appealed from the trial court’s granting of a traditional motion for summary judgment in favor of United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) on their defamation claim.
BACKGROUND
Moloney and Cantu sued USAA for defamation, alleging that they are the principals of Informed Roofing & Restoration, LLC (“Informed Roofing”), which is primarily engaged in the residential roofing repair and replacement business, and that an employee or agent of USAA had made false and defamatory statements to the San Antonio Police Department (“SAPD”) concerning them.
Specifically, Moloney and Cantu alleged that an employee of ...
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 20 Subscribe to ZIFL here https://lnkd.in/gfpn78FM
Posted on October 15, 2026 by Barry Zalma
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud.
ZIFL is published 24 times a year is written by Barry Zalma.
It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at https://lnkd.in/gVT5G9s
Six Insane Fraud Schemes the Trump Administration Has Uncovered Stealing from the taxpayer has now become a multi-billion-dollar industry in America. Obamacare has been a magnet for scammers.
Florida Insurance Agent Pleads Guilty in $300,000 Premium Finance Scheme
Daniel Raney, 41, who managed Raney Insurance and Raney Ventures in Pensacola, was arrested after AFCO Direct.
RIFE WITH FRAUD ALLOWS DEMANDS TO ESTABLISH RESTITUTION
Six Insane Fraud Schemes the Trump Administration Has Uncovered
Stealing from the taxpayer has now become a multi-billion-dollar industry in America – and the ...
Sentence for Stealing from Veterans Administration Reasonably Considers State Insurance Fraud & Arson Convictions
Post 4863
Posted on October 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In United States Of America v. Anthony Curtis Brewer, No. 26-10745, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (October 8, 2026) Anthony Curtis Brewer became the fiduciary for an incapacitated recipient of Department of Veterans Affairs survivor benefits and agreed to use her funds solely for her care and support without commingling them with his own.
The VA determined that he misused $67,232.33 and removed him as fiduciary in 2022. Brewer pleaded guilty to theft of more than $1,000 in government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. At sentencing, the district court attributed $53,567 in loss to him, producing an advisory Guidelines range of 15 to 21 months.
Citing the victim’s vulnerability, Brewer’s attempts to avoid responsibility, and his other fraudulent conduct — including state convictions for arson and insurance fraud — the court ...