The 60-Day Proof of Loss Deadline in Hawaii | Property Insurance coverage Protection Regulation Weblog


Proof of loss deadlines are all the time slightly tough when the case regulation will not be clear. For the Maui wildfire victims with an insurance coverage coverage that requires a proof of loss to be filed inside 60 days from the date of the loss, my suggestion is to be secure reasonably than sorry and acquire an indefinite extension to file a proof of loss.


The one motive I make this suggestion is a Hawaiian case1 that has the next troubling language:

The Creveling courtroom additional offered that ‘forfeiture clauses usually embody provisions comparable to submitting a well timed discover of declare and submitting proofs of loss, and are invoked to keep away from legal responsibility for present protection.’…see additionally Potesta, 504 S.E.2nd at 150 n. 16 (defining ‘technical floor’ to point ‘a floor that doesn’t contain a protection subject, such because the insured’s failure to well timed submit the insurer a proof of loss type’).

The foregoing rules comport with this courtroom’s determination in Finest Place, whereby the topic coverage required the insured to submit a proof of loss inside sixty days of the claimed loss, which the insured did not do. Id. at 123, 920 P.2nd at 337. Though the insurer may have denied the insured’s declare at that time, it elected not to take action….As an alternative, the insurer ‘selected to implicitly waive that [sixty-day] provision as evidenced by its letter, which sought extra info with respect to paperwork tending to determine the legitimacy of [the insured’s] declare.’…Consequently, this courtroom held that the insurer’s post-deadline request for extra info constituted an implied waiver of any protection based mostly on the sixty-day time limitation and that the insurer was precluded from introducing proof of the insured’s breach of responsibility with regard to the proof of loss. Id.; see additionally Nestegg Fed. Credit score Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc’y, Inc., 87 F.Supp.2nd 144, 148 (N.D.N.Y.2000) (holding that, as a result of the protection of failure to file a well timed criticism existed on the time of the insurer’s disclaimer letter, and since it was not raised within the disclaimer letter, the insurer waived the forfeiture protection).

My concern is that the Hawaiian courtroom referred to the proof of loss as a forfeiture clause. Whereas the insurance coverage firms might commit an unfair claims follow by demanding a proper proof of loss below sure circumstances, as famous in Claims Dealing with Necessities by State – Hawaii, there isn’t any case immediately on level. Some instances have discovered circumstances that represent a waiver of the proof of loss, however why danger something when my guess is that every one insurers will merely grant an extension.

Many property insurance coverage insurance policies have a provision that requires a proof of loss to be offered solely after it’s demanded. Nonetheless, some insurance coverage insurance policies have a 60-day after the date of loss provision to supply such proof. In all of my programs, I train policyholders and public adjusters to fastidiously verify the coverage simply to make sure they know which kind of provision is within the coverage.

Denise Hsu Sze is an legal professional who as soon as labored with our agency and obtained a bar license to follow regulation in Hawaii. If you’re a policyholder on Maui and wish an skilled property insurance coverage lawyer who’s licensed in Hawaii to supply recommendation about this case or every other subject, my suggestion is that you just name her at 808-727-0398.

Once more, from expertise in regulation and life, the straightforward technique to keep away from catastrophe is normally the very best plan of action except there’s a enormous upside to do in any other case. If you’re not sure what to do, name Denise for a authorized opinion and steering.

Thought For The Day 

Our issues are man-made, subsequently they might be solved by man. And man could be as huge as he desires. No drawback of human future is past human beings.

—John F. Kennedy

1 Enoka v. AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., 109 Haw. 537, 555–56, 128 P.3d 850, 868–69 (2006), as corrected (Feb. 28, 2006).


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *